Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Ministry Staff (Retiring Age)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour how many applications have been received by him from the staff in his Department since 1st November, 1951, to continue in their employment after reaching 65 years of age; how many have been turned down; and when he issued instructions to his Departmental heads to allow men to continue working after reaching the age of 65, provided they are capable of carrying out the work allotted to them.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): It has for many years been the practice in my Department to retain officers in employment beyond the age of 65 in an unestablished or temporary capacity, provided they remain fully fit and efficient and there is a need for their services. No specific application for retention is, therefore, necessary. The number of officers aged 65 and over at present employed in my Department is nearly 600.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, in view of his eloquent request to industry to retain men over 65, that there are men who have applied to stay on in his Department and that their applications have been refused?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not mean to say that at all. What I meant to say was that there are 600 over 65 who remain and that. I cannot keep on men in addition to the numbers that are wanted for the proper discharge of the work of the Ministry, much as I may like to do so.

Remploy Ltd. (Re-organisation)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the future of Remploy.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Labour what are his intentions with regard to the possible expansion of the work of Remploy, Limited.

Sir W. Monckton: The 11th Report from the Select Committee on Estimates published during the Recess gives the Departmental reply to the Committee's recommendations on Remploy, Limited. Action outlined in the reply is being pursued: the Company has now set up seven product divisions which largely replace the old geographical divisions; it is reviewing the range of products to be made in factories to secure a better utilisation of layout and machinery; and it is re-organising its sales force. I cannot hold out hope in the near future of any increase in the number of factories or in the total number of severely disabled workers employed.
The period will be one of re-organisation and consolidation of the Company's trading position, and I am satisfied that the steps which are being taken by Remploy, Limited, will lead to a greater efficiency in production and an improvement in its trading position.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that expert and informed opinion is very disquieted about the whole treatment of the disabled—not only people who are connected with Remploy, Ltd.—and presuming that my right hon. and learned Friend has had an opportunity of reading the article in "The Times" today, may I ask whether he will consider setting up a committee of experts to co-ordinate the work of all the Government Departments concerned so that the full provisions contained in the legislation may be put into operation for the benefit of the physically handicapped over a very much wider field?

Sir W. Monckton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that a great deal of the work which can be done to mitigate the hardships of the disabled falls outside the Department for which I am responsible, but I can assure her that, quite apart from the article, which I have read in this morning's newspaper, I have been in


touch and am in touch with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are much concerned with the whole position and want to re-examine it.

Mr. Hayman: While thanking the Minister for his statement, may I ask him to consider whether the medical examination set for men acceptable for Remploy is not too narrow in its conception, and that there would be a far greater number of men quite suited for work in the Remploy factories if the medical conception were a bit wider?

Sir W. Monckton: The difficulty about that is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that the standard is really statutorily laid down. They have not only to require work in sheltered conditions—if I may paraphrase the Section of the Act—but they must be capable of obtaining and retaining employment or work on their own, and to that standard the medical officers try to work. I will certainly look into the matter as the hon. Gentleman raises it.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend report to the House on the fresh conversations that he has now opened with various right hon. Friends in his capacity as Minister of Labour?

Sir W. Monckton: I shall be glad in due course to inform the House of the conclusions which are reached. My hon. Friend will know that the Minister of Health is in a position to be in touch with the local authorities who have responsibilities in this matter. I think he has given them invitations to propose schemes. When I know what has happened on that I shall be prepared to answer another Question, if it is put down.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the volume of work coming from Government Departments and local authorities is the maximum obtainable; if not, could he widen the scope in order that the Act itself could be put more into operation?

Sir W. Monckton: I am obliged for that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman has knowledge of the work of the Department, and he will be glad to know that we have appointed a liaison officer in the Ministry to assure ourselves that we get priority in Government work.

Vacancies

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour what is now the ratio between unfilled vacancies and persons unemployed; and how this figure compares with those for the same dates in each of the last five years.

Sir W. Monckton: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Do not the figures reveal the abandonment of a full employment policy during the past 12 months; and what is the Minister doing about it?

Sir W. Monckton: We certainly have not abandoned it, and I am not prepared to abandon that policy at all. The figures disclose the gap which exists between the number of vacancies one would like and the number of vacancies there are.

Following is the reply:
For every 100 persons registered as unemployed in Great Britain there were the following number of vacancies notified to employment exchanges and remaining unfilled:


September:







1947
…
…
…
…
253


1948
…
…
…
…
155


1949
…
…
…
…
154


1950
…
…
…
…
129


1951
…
…
…
…
189


1952
…
…
…
…
64

Comparability between the figures for different years is materially affected by such circumstances as changes in legislation and administrative practice.

London Appointments Office

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Labour how many people have been on the books of the London Appointments Office to the last convenient date; how many openings have been filled in the same period; and how many people have been on their staff.

Sir W. Monckton: During the 12 months ending 15th September, 1952, 21,418 persons registered, or renewed registration, at the London Appointments Office and in the same period 2,288 registrants were placed in employment. The staff in post is 207, part of whom are engaged on an advisory service which is extensively used.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider having a Departmental inquiry into the London Appointments Office, because from the figures which he has just given us they seem to be singularly ineffective, and there is a widespread impression that the office is not as energetic as it ought to be in selling its services—if I may use the phrase—to employers?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not assent to that view of the work of the London Appointments Office. The first thing that ought to be borne in mind is that less than half those who are on the register are unemployed; there are also people who have employment and want different employment. One cannot judge by the number of persons who are registered and the number who are placed. Dealing with people who want to be exchanged is one thing, but when doing the advisory work properly—as I am satisfied they are trying to do—many people are sent to employment exchanges, and they are credited as being placed by them, although the work has been started by the Appointments Office.

Distributive Workers (Dangerous Machinery)

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Labour if, pending the adoption of the safety and welfare recommendations of the Gowers Committee, he will introduce a short amendment to the Factories Act extending its provisions to shop assistants, warehousemen and others called upon to operate dangerous power-driven machinery in their daily occupations.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made on 1st August by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder). The proposed consultations with interested organisations have since been initiated.

Mr. Price: Does the Minister realise that many thousands of distributive workers are working in daily contact with dangerous machinery, notably bacon slicers and presses, and that someone working in those circumstances who is injured has no similar remedy open to him as, say, a woodwork machinist would have if injured at his work? Will he take

steps to deal with this matter, which has been far too long delayed, even if emergency legislation is required?

Sir W. Monckton: We all realise the difficulty of emergency legislation. Through my right hon. and learned Friend, the Government have expressed their general approval of what the Gowers Committee recommends, and have started consultations with the interested parties so that we may have something concrete on the whole front to suggest to the House.

Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are registered as unemployed at the Brixton Employment Exchange; and how the figures compare with a year ago.

Sir W. Monckton: 1,257 males and 424 females at 15th September, 1952, compared with 531 males and 183 females at 17th September, 1951.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in June last the unemployment figures were twice as great as in the preceding year, and that the figures are now getting on for three times the number as compared with the corresponding period of last year?

Sir W. Monckton: Similar comparisons can be drawn with the year before, and we find that, although the present situation is worse than in 1950, the differences between various months show that although there has been an increase this year over 1951 the position is not very different from 1950.

Building Workers, London

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many building workers are unemployed in the London area; and how the number compares with last year.

Sir W. Monckton: 4,427 at 15th September, 1952, compared with 2,159 at 17th September, 1951.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why there has been this marked and continual worsening of the unemployment situation so far as the building workers are concerned in the London area since he became Minister of Labour?

Sir W. Monckton: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is none of my intentional doing, but I would like to say this: the figures I have given for 15th September, 1952, represent just over 2 per cent. of the estimated total number of employees in the building industry in the area. Although I regret there has been an increase, I do not think it is so startling as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Would the Minister suggest that many of the unemployed should go to Stoke-on-Trent, where we want to build many more thousands of houses than we are doing?

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why there should be any unemployment in the building industry at the present time?

Sir W. Monckton: May I first say a word about Stoke-on-Trent. If it were as easy as one would like it to be to take workers from London to Stoke-on-Trent and put them to work there, no one would be more satisfied than I, but it is not very easy to make that change. As things are now, although there is a great deal of building to be done, it depends a great deal on what the exact building situation is in a particular part of the country.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister explain how, if there is urgent need for houses, schools, factories, hospitals and sanatoria in London, there can be any unemployed building trade workers at all? What is the reason for it?

Sir W. Monckton: I am not in a position either to provide all the money that would be wanted or the materials that would be wanted of the particular kind required in a particular place.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Stoke-on-Trent

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in Stoke-on-Trent have been unemployed for 12 months and six months, respectively; and what steps are being taken to assist them to obtain suitable work.

Sir W. Monckton: At 13th October, 1952, the number of disabled persons in Stoke-on-Trent who had been unemployed for 12 months was 135; a further 117 had been unemployed for six months. Continuous efforts are being made by my local officers to assist them to find suitable employment.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of these men are giving up hope of ever getting a job, and would he not agree that there are considerations other than commercial considerations concerning many of these men who cannot do 100 per cent. work? Will he, in the light of what has been said previously, in respect of both Service men and industrial casualties, review the whole position to see if he can give these men, many of whom are in middle age, some hope?

Sir W. Monckton: I completely sympathise with the point of view that one ought not to look at this matter purely on a commercial basis, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to do so. When I spoke of my conversations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I had in mind that I had to deal with those for whom I could get employment and who could hold that employment. He has wider opportunities, and I think we ought to get together about it, and then, as I have said, I am prepared to answer Questions at a later date in the House.

Dr. Stross: Would the Minister bear in mind that part at least of this problem is covered by the Remploy factories in the district, and can he promise the House that he will use his influence to see that Government Departments give larger and more frequent orders, so that at least 50 or 60 per cent. of the output from these factories is from that source?

Sir W. Monckton: As I have assured the House in answer to an earlier Question, I have now an officer whose task it is to see that our priority position in that regard is respected in the Government Departments.

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Labour what are the present unemployment figures for Stoke-on-Trent, showing men and women separately; and how many of this number are registered as disabled persons.

Sir W. Monckton: 1,175 males and 1,142 females at 15th September, of whom 488 males and 51 females were registered disabled persons.

Mr. Davies: Do not these figures show that, in addition to the long-standing unemployed disabled persons, there is a problem concerning able-bodied men, and is there not a case, so far as the disabled persons are concerned, for an examination of some of the jobs being done in the ordnance factories particularly, to see whether some of these men can be engaged?

Sir W. Monckton: I would point out that the total of the two figures which I gave for males and females represents 1.5 per cent. of the estimated total of employees in the area, and, looking at the country as a whole, one has to keep this matter in proportion. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there are unemployment difficulties to be found especially in the china and earthenware trades.

Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman see, with his colleagues, whether this problem could not be tackled much better if the working of the Distribution of Industry Act was more within the scope of the Ministry of Labour than the Board of Trade?

Sir W. Monckton: I appreciate that question, coming from the source from which it came

Dock Workers

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish a statement showing, in recent months, what has been the percentage of unemployment among dock workers in each of the principal British ports.

Sir W. Monckton: Under the National Dock Labour Scheme continuous employment with a guaranteed minimum wage is available to all registered dock workers proving attendance. During the last six months the number of those proving attendance who were surplus to requirements in all areas covered by the scheme was equivalent to an average daily percentage of 15.3 of the total of registered dock workers.
I will send the hon. Member particulars about the principal ports.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister say how the percentage compares with that of 12 months ago?

Sir W. Monckton: I cannot give the figures now, but I will certainly get the information for the hon. Gentleman.

Physically Disabled (Home Work)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has reached any conclusions on the possibility of providing some kinds of work at home for the physically disabled who are outside the scope of Remploy, Limited.

Sir W. Monckton: This is a matter which is engaging the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister and his colleague take this matter into urgent consideration, since there are 60,000 registered disabled persons in this category?

Sir W. Monckton: I am most anxious not to get into a discussion of figures with the hon. Gentleman. If that should become necessary, I think that he has given a high figure, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, so far as my Department is concerned, I am dealing with the matter from the employment end, and I have to look at the numbers in the categories which deal with sheltered conditions and the numbers in industry as a whole. I am trying to do that. As I have indicated my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has invited the local authorities to put up schemes to him.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the very great disappointment with the provision of work for domiciliary workers who are disabled, and in view of a recommendation of the Advisory Council upon the Welfare of Handicapped Persons, which urges the importance of local authorities taking the steps provided for in the welfare clause of the National Assistance Act, will he communicate with his right hon. Friend to see that the local authorities present schemes which will alleviate a great deal of this distress?

Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly raise that matter with my right hon. Friend. So far as the Remploy Company is concerned, I know that they try to get that


sort of work, but there is difficulty in finding work of a continuous kind for home-bound disabled.

Mr. J. Paton: Is it not clear from what the Minister has just said, and from the many Questions on this subject that have been asked, that the time has arrived for an independent inquiry into the whole subject, including the relationship of the sheltered employment in Remploy to the much more difficult problem of the homebound disabled about whom there is so much anxiety?

Sir W. Monckton: It is precisely on that matter that I am in touch with my right hon. Friend, and I shall be glad to answer a Question on that when my conversations have ended.

Z Reservist (Re-instatement)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Labour why W. Binns and Son, milk carriers, Silsden, near Keighley, refused to re-employ John Harry Spencer Binns, 25, Foster Avenue, Silsden, on his return from Z Reserve training with 539 Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery, and if he will take the necessary action to secure his re-instatement.

Sir W. Monckton: I am having inquiries made and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Hobson: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he will expedite his inquiries because, prima facie, there appears to have been a flagrant breach of the law in this respect?

Sir W. Monckton: We are going as fast as we can. We were a little incommoded by the fact that the name was wrong in the first instance, but we have now overcome that hindrance.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Call Up

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour how many men have been called up for National Service from 1st January, 1952, to the latest date for which figures are available; how this figure compares with that for the same period of 1951; and how many men it is now proposed to call up in 1953.

Sir W. Monckton: From 1st January to the end of September, 1952, 132,000; the corresponding figure for 1951 was 128,600. How many men will be called up in 1953 depends largely on how many volunteer for regular engagements, but a rough estimate of the number is 150,000.

Mr. Swingler: On the basis of those figures, can the Minister now say whether it is his policy to increase the number of deferments and exemptions or to diminish them?

Sir W. Monckton: So far as these figures go, we are satisfied with the present position in regard to deferment.

Deferments

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Labour what are the overriding principles and priorities which govern the grant of deferment to young men liable for National Service at 18 years of age.

Sir W. Monckton: The principles are that National Service in peace-time is an obligation to be discharged as nearly as possible by all fit young men, that the man-power needs of the Services must be met, and that, as far as possible, young men should be allowed to finish approved studies or training before call-up if they wish.
Subject to these principles, regard is had to the importance, in the national interest, of obtaining more coal and home-grown food, of an efficient merchant navy, in peace or war, and of expediting the most vital re-armament projects and expanding certain important categories of engineering exports.

Mr. Price: Does the Minister realise that there is growing disquiet in the country about what many regard as the growing discrimination in favour of certain grades of employment? For instance, it is known to be the easiest thing in the world to register for a correspondence course in accountancy and get almost unlimited deferment, while land is being denuded of essential labour. We on this side think that something ought to be done to redress the balance.

Sir W. Monckton: I will look into the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman. So far as denuding the land of essential labour is concerned, I feel it is important


that there should be a generally undertaken obligation, and that there should not be wholesale exclusions of people who are at present liable.

Sir R. Glyn: Is special consideration being given to apprentices, especially apprentices in vital industries in rearmament?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. As the matter stands at present, in the case of highly skilled apprentices in high priority establishments special consideration has been granted in accordance with the last announcement I made before the Recess.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that these deferments have been primarily concerned with the re-armament programme; and in view of the Prime Minister's recent statements, in this House and elsewhere, that at the present time exports should take precedence over defence requirements, why is it necessary to provide deferment for those in the re-armament industry and not for those in the export industry?

Sir W. Monckton: In the last announcement we made we did say that in the export industry some highly skilled people in priority establishments would be taken into account. I will certainly look at it again, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Labour the maximum period of deferment granted to National Service men for professional studies, industrial apprenticeships and agricultural employment, respectively.

Sir W. Monckton: Subject to satisfactory progress, deferment is granted for professional studies for the period necessary to obtain the desired qualification, and for industrial apprenticeships, until the completion of the recognised period of training, provided, in either case, this will be before the man reaches the upper age limit of liability for call up.
Deferment in respect of employment in agriculture is granted in appropriate cases for a maximum of six or 12 months in the first instance, and may be renewed if the relevant conditions remain satisfied.

Mr. Price: Can the Minister say what happens to a sluggish student who is granted limited deferment and reaches the

upper age limit without qualifying in the course on which he has embarked? Is he still liable to service at that age?

Sir W. Monckton: Oh, yes. A student is not deferred indefinitely without consideration of what he is doing, and he will be called up before his period runs out in any event.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be more advisable and in the best interests of the country, of the Services and of industry if, instead of providing this temporary deferment, which is of no value to anybody really, the men who are deferred were invited to enter the Territorial or Auxiliary Forces; and would the Minister recommend to his right hon. Friends associated with the Services the payment of a higher bounty to attract those men?

Sir W. Monckton: I think that goes rather far for me to answer. I am not wishing to add to the burdens I carry. So far as deferments not being desired by people is concerned, all I can say is that a great deal of my time is taken up in explaining why particular deferments cannot be granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Dentist, Crayford (Appeal)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health what compensation is to be paid to Mrs. Beatrice Cox, 263, Maiden Lane, Crayford, whose jaw was broken by a dentist when having teeth extracted under the National Health scheme; on what grounds the Kent and Canterbury Executive Council withheld £21 from the salary of the dentist concerned, of whose name he has been informed; and on what other occasions deductions have been made from his salary by the Council.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): Any question of compensation for alleged negligent treatment is a matter between the patient and the dentist. The Executive Council's recommendation in the case of Mrs. Cox and her dentist is at present the subject of an appeal to me and I cannot therefore comment further on the case at this stage.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the disgraceful features of this case, will the Minister say whether this dentist has previously been guilty of offences, because that is specifically asked in the Question? Secondly, an appeal having been made to him, will he say what action he has now taken and whether the appeal will go forward?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot give the details asked for in the very last part of the Question—although, of course, I know them—without departing from the impartiality that I must maintain at this stage of the case. With regard to the other part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, an oral hearing of the appeal has been arranged and will take place.

Hospital Staffs

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Health the number of administrative and clerical staff of hospitals on the earliest date after nationalisation on which the information was recorded.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The number for England and Wales was 20,933 on 31st December, 1948, but this total is incomplete since certain of the administrative and clerical work of the Hospital Service was at that date still being carried out by local authorities on behalf of hospital boards and committees.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Health the number of man/woman days lost by sickness by the staffs of the nationalised hospitals during the last 12 months for which the statistics are available.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that the information is not available.

Sir H. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think it would be a good idea to find out whether there has been an increase in sickness among hospital staffs since nationalisation?

Mr. Macleod: I am very ready to take a dip check, but I am not anxious to add to the paper burden on the hospitals.

Hospital Diets

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health what is being done to improve the diet of hospital in-patients; and whether he can list the reasons for the

low standard in some hospitals, homes for aged people, and day nurseries.

Mr. Iain Macleod: During recent years the standard of diet in hospitals, homes for aged persons and day nurseries has much improved as a result of visits by dietetic advisers of the Ministry. Hospital authorities have also been advised to appoint experienced catering officers and to send their cooks on training courses.

Dr. Stross: Has not the Minister recently been advised by his own Department that in some hospitals and homes the standard is too low and that the reasons are lack of money and the rising cost of food? In view of his answer to a Question about food poisoning, will he pay special attention to the kitchen equipment of institutions and provide sufficient money so that the kitchens may be reorganised and the technique improved?

Mr. Macleod: We have had at least 250 reports in the last 12 months from hospitals, excluding day nurseries and other places. I do not accept as a generalisation what the hon. Member has said. By far the best method is for any hon. Member who would like an official of my Ministry to look into the catering arrangements of a hospital to let me know and I will see that that is done.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the poor quality of the food and, in particular, the unpalatable way in which it is served in many major London hospitals to patients who are severely ill are even today matters of considerable and widespread complaint?

Mr. Macleod: I am against generalising in this matter. If I am given examples of hospitals I will make inquiries.

Prescription Charges

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement on the deterrent effect of the recently imposed charges in the Health Service; and if he will give an estimate of the current financial saving effected.

Mr. Iain Macleod: These charges have led to some fall in the demand for drugs


and to other savings in costs, but it is too early as yet to make an estimate of the financial savings likely to be effected.

Dr. Stross: Would it be fair to say that the Minister's answer suggests that the deterrent effect of the charges preventing people from attending for diagnosis and treatment may contribute a major part of the saving compared with the charges and cash receipts? If he finds that that is so and that children are being debarred from diagnosis and treatment will he review the whole matter?

Mr. Macleod: I am keeping the matter constantly under review. I am circulating an answer to Question No. 25 giving the very fullest details, and perhaps the hon. Member will study it.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health to give comparable figures of the number of prescriptions issued for dental treatment, surgical boots, spectacles and other articles pro-

—
1951
1952



June
July
Aug.
Sept.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.


Prescriptions:










Prescriptions presented for dispensing by chemists (to nearest ¼ million) (Note 1)
17m.
16¼m.
15m.
—
14½m.
15½m.
14m.
—


Dental Treatment (Note 2):










Completed Courses of dental treatment under normal procedure (other than for the provision of dentures, to which the 1952 charges do not apply):










To the nearest '000 (Note 3)
354
332
380
378
372
361
406
366


Courses for limited treatment provided under simplified procedure:










To the nearest '000 (Note 4)
209
228
302
242
151
124
144
117


Appliances (Note 5):









Surgical boots (number of pairs)
4,003
3,533
3,398
3,594
2,569
2,479
5,537


Abdominal supports
8,874
9,636
7,311
7,315
5,311
4,221
8,865


Wigs
715
729
604
698
434
429
918


Elastic Hosiery ordered through the hospital service (numbers or orders)
2,954
2,901
2,736
2,951
2,450
2,354
5,107

NOTES

1. Includes elastic hosiery prescribed by general practitioners. There are no separate statistics for prescriptions issued by hospital outpatient departments.

2. The monthly figures are based on weekly returns. In the figures shown, June, July and September include four weeks' and August five weeks' returns.

3. The figures of completed courses of dental treatment during the four months include the holiday season and relate to the dates at which dentists, having completed treatment, apply for payment; a number of the courses included in these figures were started in the period before the charges came into operation.

4. The courses for limited treatment, which consist largely of extractions of one or two teeth, usually cost under £1 and since patients would have to pay the whole cost under the National Health Service, many may be assumed to have had the treatment privately.

5. Separate figures for August and September for these items are not available. The figures include appliances ordered as replacements.

vided by the National Health Service before and after the new charges were enforced.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No new charges for spectacles were introduced under the National Health Service Act, 1952. With permission I will circulate the reply to the rest of the Question, which is largely statistical, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Freeman: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that there has been no undue suffering or deterioration in health as a result of the efforts in these directions to make economies?

Mr. Macleod: I have no such evidence.

Following is the information:
Comparison of the demand for drugs, dental treatment and appliances under the National Health Service during the four months June to September, 1952, following the introduction of charges on 1st June, 1952, under the National Health Service Amending Act, 1952, with the demand in the corresponding period of 1951.

Mr. J. Paton: asked the Minister of Health what regulations he has made for refunding the difference when National Health prescriptions cost less than 1s.

Mr. Iain Macleod: None, Sir.

Mr. Paton: Is it not wholly wrong that a worker should have to pay a 1s. fee on a prescription for 3d. worth of permanganate of potash? Who gets the benefits from an overcharge of that description?

Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Member likes to take the example he has given of 3d. worth of permanganate of potash, he will have to add 25 per cent. on cost, a minimum dispensing fee of 4d. and a container fee, bringing the total to between 10d. and 11d.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADMOOR INSTITUTION (SECURITY MEASURES)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Health which of the recommendations made by the Scott Henderson inquiry on Broadmoor have now been implemented, and which are still under discussion.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Eight of the recommendations have been implemented. Five are in course of implementation and two are going forward under Whitley Council procedure. With permission, I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Remnant: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the agreement arrived at yesterday answers the recommendation in paragraph 22 about increases of pay to attract fresh staff, and does he still accept, in principle, the recommendation in paragraph 23?

Mr. Macleod: There has been no change at all since the statement which I made in the House accepting the report of the Scott Henderson Committee. With regard to the agreement which has been reached provisionally, the only matter now in dispute is when the pay increases should start, and that has gone to arbitration.

Following are the details:
[The references are to the numbered subparagraphs in the Summary of Recommendations, in paragraph 31 of the Report of the Broadmoor Inquiry Committee (Cmd. 8594).]

I. Recommendations implemented:
(a) and (f). The Chairman of the Board of Control addressed a meeting of representatives of the staff of Broadmoor on 18th July, 1952. Further meetings will be held from time to time.
(b) Dr. James, the newly appointed Medical Superintendent of Broadmoor, has experience of both Rampton and Moss Side Hospitals. Dr. Knox, the Deputy Superintendent, has been employed at Broadmoor since 1932.
(g) An amendment to the Broadmoor Institution Rules 1952 (Statutory Instrument No. 366 of 1952) to give effect to this recommendation was laid before Parliament on 14th October.
(h) The structural alterations necessary to place the Ministry of Works yard outside the security wall are now complete.
(j) This recommendation has been implemented.
(l) A siren has been installed. A direct telephone and alarm to Wokingham Police Station are now available.
(o) A plan of co-operation has been worked out in complete detail and agreed between the Medical Superintendent and the Chief Constable.

II. In course of implementation:
(e) The security rules are being revised.
(i) A distinctive coloured cloth for overalls has been chosen and will be brought into use as soon as supplies become available. The suggestion in the remainder of this recommendation had been adopted.
(k) New locks have been fitted to the outer doors of all blocks. Work on re-locking the inner doors is well advanced.
(m) Consultations have taken place and a scheme for warning schools is now being prepared.
(n) The Board of Control are in communication with the B.B.C. on this recommendation.

III. Pay and Conditions of Service:
(c) and (d). Pay and conditions of service have been discussed on the Whitley Committee for the State Institutions. An offer of substantial pay increases has been made, but agreement has not been reached about the date from which the increases should be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Food Poisoning

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking, particularly in conjunction with the Minister of Food, to offset the continued increase in outbreaks of food poisoning.

Mr. Iain Macleod: A major factor in dealing with this problem is the recognition by both industry and public of the need for care and cleanliness in all


aspects of food handling, and much publicity work has already been done on this by the Departments concerned, local authorities and other bodies. At the same time, in conjuction with my Department the Ministry of Food is considering what further measures can usefully be taken in the light of recent reports as regards meat and meat products, and is also looking into the subject of synthetic cream.
I have also under consideration a revision of the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations so as to give wider powers in relation to food poisoning.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: While thanking my right hon. Friend very much for that comprehensive reply, may I ask if he is aware that, according to his Ministry's report, 83 of the 539 outbreaks last year were in hospitals and institutions? Will he take whatever disciplinary action is necessary to stop this?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, certainly.

B.C.G. Vaccine

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Health whether B.C.G. vaccine is now being manufactured in this country.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. Manufacture in this country will be considered as soon as the level of requirements justifies this course.

Mr. Remnant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable amount is being imported by air and that at present its manufacture here is illegal under the Therapeutic Substances Act? Will he at least give permission, by law if necessary, for it to be manufactured here?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I am aware of those matters. We import from Copenhagen and Paris, but the amount involved at present totals only £1,600 a year, and until the use of B.C.G. becomes more widely approved I do not think there is any point in changing the present position.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH STAFF

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Health to what extent the administrative staff of his Department has been reduced since 1st January; and what further savings in staff are proposed now.

Mr. Iain Macleod: 184 up to 1st October. The staffing position remains under constant review and further savings will be made wherever possible.

Mr. M. Lindsay: Can my right hon. Friend express that in terms of percentage? We do not know how big a saving of 184 is.

Mr. Macleod: It is out of a grand total of 2,790.

CENSUS, CROYDON

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Health why the county borough of Croydon, which is the fourteenth largest county borough in England and Wales, was included in the smaller areas on pages 155–56 of the Census 1951 Great Britain, 1 per cent. sample table.

Mr. Iain Macleod: For the purpose of the Census 1951 Great Britain 1 per cent. sample table all county boroughs with populations of under 250,000 are included in the smaller areas. The 1951 census population of Croydon is 249,592.

IDENTITY CARDS, ABOLITION (SAVINGS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what savings have now been effected as the result of abolishing identity cards.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It is estimated that as a result of the discontinuance of national registration the saving on the Vote for the Registrar General's Office for 1952–53, is about £1 million, including the cost of national registration staff in local offices. The additional cost to the Ministry of Health of maintaining the National Health Service Central Register is estimated to be some £150,000 per annum. Some additional expense will also be incurred by other Departments.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In the answer which he has just given, did the Minister refer to the saving in staff that is being effected?

Mr. Macleod: No, I did not. I have not the details, but there has been a considerable saving in staff both as a result of the abolition of the local offices and as a result of the reduction of staff at the central office in Southport.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the saving of the staff, or shall I have to put down another question?

Mr. Macleod: I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put down another question, because I took this one to be purely financial.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

New School Building

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education how many new primary and secondary schools, stated separately, are being built at present; and how these figures compare with those of a year and two years ago, respectively.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): The numbers of new primary schools under construction in England and Wales on 1st June in 1950, 1951 and 1952 were 716, 911 and 785. Comparable figures for new secondary schools were 219, 293 and 276.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister draw the attention of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to those figures about school building, and, in particular, to the drastic cut she has made in the number of new schools started in the first six months of this year, in order to give him an opportunity to correct the false impression that he gave at Scarborough?

Miss Horsbrugh: The number of new schools was eventually cut down in order to get more completed schools. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that more educational building work was done in the first half of 1952 than was done in the first half of 1951.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We really must get on for we are only at Question No. 30.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory and misleading statement, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Education Act, Part III (Operation)

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education when she proposes to put Part III of the Education Act, 1944, into full operation.

Miss Horsbrugh: I cannot say when circumstances will make this possible.

Mr. Morley: Can the right hon. Lady say what protection a local education authority can now give to parents and children concerned when it is reported that an independent school in their area is staffed entirely by unqualified teachers housed in unsuitable premises? If no protection can be given is not that a reason for hurrying up the operation of this part of the Act?

Miss Horsbrugh: Part III of the Act cannot be brought into operation in the meantime. At present we could not enforce sound standards by legislation while it remains so hard for proprietors of independent schools to remedy shortcomings in their premises and staffing. It is open to any local education authority to prosecute parents if their children, who are attending such schools, are not receiving a full-time education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude.

School Transport, Essex

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Education what discussions she has had with the Essex Education Committee on her proposal to reduce the provision of school transport; how many children in the county of Essex, who had previously been taken to and from school by omnibus, will now have to walk; and if she is aware of the dangerous character of the roads in many outlying rural areas, such as the road between Asheldham and Southminster, to which her attention has been drawn especially.

Miss Horsbrugh: I informed a deputation from the authority that I could not accept their proposal to restore the cuts in the transport of senior pupils which their predecessors had put into operation. About 6,000 pupils are affected. I am aware that a number of roads in the county are considered to be dangerous, and I am willing that transport should be provided over less than the statutory walking distance where there is special justification. The authority do not, however, regard the Asheldham to Southminster road as especially dangerous.

Mr. Driberg: While appreciating the slight concession in the last part of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Lady to look at the one-inch Ordnance Survey


map of this area, when she will see the extraordinarily large number of dangerous right-angle bends that there are on this quite short stretch of road?

Miss Horsbrugh: That is entirely for the local authority. It has been made quite clear that if a local authority can say that an area is particularly dangerous, then they can, as I have said, make an exception.

Retired Teachers' Pensions (Payment)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Education how many retired teachers have applied to have their pension paid monthly instead of quarterly; and whether she will consider this matter with a view to meeting the wishes of those concerned.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have no precise record of the number of teachers who have applied for payment of their pensions monthly. In view of the additional cost of the change I should not feel justified in proposing it in the present financial circumstances of the country.

Major Anstruther-Gray: In view of the fact that other Departments find it possible to pay pensions monthly instead of quarterly to those who desire it, would not my right hon. Friend look into this matter again? The cost should not be very great, as only a comparatively small number of teachers feel this need?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have looked into it, and if the pensions were to be paid monthly instead of quarterly I am informed that the extra cost, apart from the extra manpower required, would be about £1 million.

Teachers (Recruitment)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education what steps she has taken, or is taking, to increase the number of recruits to the teaching profession.

Miss Horsbrugh: Present arrangements for recruitment and training provide for an annual increase in the national teacher strength of some 3,000–4,000 teachers.

Dr. King: As the next figures which the Minister will publish for each class in the country will be even more alarming than those recently published for January,

1951, and as the training colleges are not all full, will the right hon. Lady not regard this matter of the recruitment of teachers as one of dire emergency? Will she not call together the educational bodies of the country so that we can get down to a solution of this problem?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have discussed it and I am still discussing it both with the associations of teachers and with other educational bodies, but I would point out that the annual increase of 3,000 to 4,000 is a big increase. That will mean recruiting 14,000 extra teachers each year. I should like to recruit more, but we have to face these particular difficulties. That is the increase we are facing at the present, and I would also mention that we have provided more places in the training colleges.

Mr. M. MacPherson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that if this country is to maintain its present high standard of scientific work there will need to be a completely new approach to the question of obtaining scientists and mathematicians for the schools?

Miss Horsbrugh: I should like to obtain more scientists and mathematicians for the schools and, perhaps the hon. Member will tell us sometime what suggestions he can make towards that end.

Miss Ward: Has my right hon. Friend discussed the possibility of the introduction of equal pay for women teachers as a means of attracting more women teachers, who are essential in the teaching profession?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, I have discussed this on several occasions, but I would tell the House that at the present time of those girls who stay on at grammar schools to the age of 18 we get 70 per cent. going in for teaching, and we get one-third of the intake in the teaching profession from those who have gone into other professions and have come back into teaching.

Children Over Five (School Places)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education how many children over the age of five years in England and Wales and Warwickshire, respectively, were unable to find places in the nation's schools in September, 1952.

Miss Horsbrugh: The available evidence suggests that the number over the country as a whole is not large. In Warwickshire, I am informed that there are two districts where a very small number of children aged five have not been admitted this term.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she has achieved this result only by packing children into institutes, outbuildings, canteens and other school buildings of all kinds? Does she not agree with me that the appropriate remedy would be to start serious school building once more?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that any school building that I had started since I came into office would have no effect upon the fact that these children are out of school today, and that it takes at least 18 months to build a school. Thanks to the new organisation of our building programme we are getting, and shall get, schools more quickly, and so provide earlier the places that are required.

Independent Schools

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education how many independent schools have been inspected and recognised to the last convenient date; and how many of those inspected were deemed to be inefficient.

Miss Horsbrugh: Since Circular 196 was issued in January, 1949, 3,498 independent schools in England have been inspected under the arrangements described in the circular. The purpose of these inspections has not been to classify the schools as efficient and inefficient.

Mr. Johnson: There must still be many thousands of schools kept by inefficient unqualified elderly females in suburbia. When does the right hon. Lady intend to inspect this particular kind of school?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Gentleman will see from these figures that the work of inspection is continuing. I would like to add that it is not necessarily a bad education because it is given by an elderly female in a suburb.

Oral Answers to Questions — GURKHA REGIMENTS

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to what extent the Indian Government has withdrawn facilities for the recruitment of men for the Gurkha Regiments of the British Army.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations the Government of India has made to Her Majesty's Government regarding the employment of Gurkha regiments outside India.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The Government of India have informed Her Majesty's Government that they wish to terminate the present arrangements by which the actual enlistment of Gurkhas from Nepal for service with the British Army takes place on Indian territory. We are at present examining the possibility of alternative arrangements.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend represent to the Indian Government the invaluable part played by the Gurkhas in Malaya and elsewhere? Does he not think it is an extraordinary thing to do, and will he bring every pressure to bear to see that these men are allowed to serve voluntarily in the British Army?

Mr. Foster: Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance to the continued flow of recruits to the Gurkha Brigade in the British Army.

Mr. Brockway: While recognising that the present position is in conformity with the agreement with the Indian Government, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would consider whether there should not be some adjustment of this arrangement in order to meet the natural wish of the Indian Government not to desire their nationals to be employed in external wars for which they have no responsibility?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. These men are not nationals of the Indian Government. With regard to the other part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, of course Her Majesty's Government wish to respond to the request of any Commonwealth Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

North-eastern Trading Estates, Ltd.

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many people, men and women, were employed by the North-Eastern Trading Estates, Limited, on the latest available date.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to employment in the factories administered by the North-eastern Trading Estates, Limited. On 30th August, 1952, the latest date for which official statistics are available, these factories employed 16,695 men and boys and 24,385 women and girls, making a total of 41,080.
I regret that my reply to the hon. Member on 15th July contained an error. The figure of male employment which was given as 16,608 should have been 16,508, and the consequent total figure 41,267.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman both for correctly assuming the purpose of the Question and for the correction he has made of the earlier reply. Is he not disturbed by the fact that these new Government-built factories are still employing today fewer people than 12 months ago? This is most discouraging to us in the Development Area where we expected that these factories would be employing at least 10,000 more than 12 months ago.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman asked me for statistical information. I do not think it would be proper to deal with the other matters by way of supplementary question and answer.

British Cars (Exhibition, Canada)

Captain Ryder: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that cars made in this country are being banned from the principal motor shows in Toronto and Montreal; what action he is taking in this matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Strauss: Yes, Sir. While I regret this, my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that the organisation of these private exhibitions, for which the

Canadian Government are not responsible, is not a matter in which we could intervene. British motor cars are prominently displayed at the Canadian National Exhibition.

Captain Ryder: While appreciating that this is not a matter for Government action, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend to suggest to those who carry the responsibility that we are making very considerable efforts to build up two-way trade with Canada and that any facilities and help we can get will be much appreciated?

Mr. Strauss: What my hon. and gallant Friend has said is well recognised both in this country and in Canada.

Latin-American Markets (Export Credit Facilities)

Mr. Turner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Latin-American dollar account markets present opportunities to our exporters to expand their sales; and if he will extend to exporters to these countries the special facilities that the Export Credits Guarantee Department now provide for exporters to Canada and the United States of America only.

Mr. H. Strauss: Yes, Sir. It is important to increase our exports to the dollar account markets and I am glad to say that the Export Credits Guarantee Department are prepared to consider favourably any soundly based propositions designed to increase sales to these markets, and will, in appropriate cases, make available to exporters facilities broadly comparable with those now available to exporters to North America.
Conditions in the Latin-American dollar countries vary, and the guarantees which the Department may offer will not therefore necessarily be the same as those given in the case of sales to the North American markets. The object will be to encourage exports in the most effective way according to the particular circumstances of each case.

Mr. Turner: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for his answer, may I ask him whether he is aware of the very general satisfaction that this decision will give to all those engaged in the export trade?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Pamphlet, "Women in Britain"

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of preparing and printing the Central Office of Information document "Women in Britain"; and how many copies have been printed.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): On the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, I would refer him to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on 14th October. One thousand five hundred copies were duplicated; none was printed.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling on 1st October, 1952, as compared with 1st November, 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that the figures for which the hon. Member asks are not yet available.

Probate Fees, Northern Ireland

Mr. Wellwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the non-contentious probate office fees payable in Northern Ireland on small estates are higher than those chargeable on similar estates in the rest of the United Kingdom; and why Northern Ireland citizens are prejudiced in this way.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These fees are fixed by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland with the concurrence of the Treasury. I have received no proposal for any reduction in the fees now payable, but I understand that representations made recently by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland are at present under consideration by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made on 28th November last by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to

the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, to the effect that the Government would do everything possible to see that the affairs of the Council of Europe were debated in this House, still represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Yes, Sir. Two White Papers are being prepared on the Council of Europe; one will give an account of the progress made on the United Kingdom's proposals and the other will contain a report on this year's session of the Consultative Assembly. If, when the House has considered these White Papers, there is a demand for a debate, this can be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. de Freitas: Does not the Prime Minister think, in view of the complete change in the Conservative Party's policy at Strasbourg since his party became the Government, that it is really most regrettable that the Government have not fulfilled this undertaking of the Home Secretary and provided the House with time to debate the matter during the past year?

The Prime Minister: I would certainly agree that there are a great many subjects which have been regretted, but I do not feel that this one is outstandingly regrettable.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the Prime Minister arrange that during that debate one of the spokesmen for the Government will be the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, so that he can put forward the new change of Government policy in regard to the co-ordination and integration of transport in Europe, which he supported at Strasbourg?

The Prime Minister: We have not yet fixed the day and the occasion for the debate. I am sure that it would be premature to arrange the speakers so far ahead

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTESTED CATTLE

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture what percentage of the cattle in Great Britain are attested; and what are the separate figures for the main agricultural areas.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Thirty-seven per cent. I am


sending my hon. Friend a statement showing the figures for each county at the end of September.

Mr. Osborne: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is a low percentage? Is he satisfied with the action being taken to improve the position?

Mr. Nugent: The position is progressively improving. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the progress is reasonable.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (NEW BUILDING)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to secure priority for the finance, labour and materials needed to build, at once, the prisons required to relieve the overcrowding there and the consequent inefficiency in the service.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): There is no possibility of building at once enough new prisons to relieve the present overcrowding. The programme of new building already approved will start in 1953, and its development will not be retarded by limitations on capital investment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, whose Department will be responsible for building the new prisons, has undertaken to urge these projects forward as much as he can. In the meantime, some relief is being sought by increasing the number of open institutions.

Mr. Mitchison: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that the maintenance of old and overcrowded prisons involves revenue expenses quite out of proportion to the cost of building new prisons in their place?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am well aware of that, but this is purely a financial question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 20TH OCTOBER—Report and Third Reading:

Housing (Scotland) Bill, which we hope to obtain by about 7 o'clock.

Committee stage:

Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Bill.

TUESDAY, 21ST OCTOBER—Second Reading:

Cinematograph Bill [Lords].

Prisons (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure;

Committee stage:

Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Bill [Lords].

We hope to obtain the Second Reading of this Bill on Friday.

Consideration of the Motions to approve:
Draft Ploughing Grants (No. 2) Scheme, and a similar Scheme for Scotland.

WEDNESDAY, 22ND OCTOBER—Report and Third Reading:

Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Bill.

Committee stage:

Visiting Forces Bill [Lords].

Consideration of the Motions to approve:

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations.

Civil Defence (Appropriation of Lands and Buildings) Regulations.

It may be convenient for the House to be informed that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, a statement will be made on Korea after Questions on that day.

THURSDAY, 23RD OCTOBER, will be set apart at the request of the Opposition for a debate on the Government's White Paper relating to the iron and steel industry.

FRIDAY, 24TH OCTOBER—Committee and remaining stages:

Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords.].

Committee stage:

Cinematograph Bill [Lords.].

Consideration of Lords Amendments to:

Defamation Bill.

Cockfighting Bill.

These are Private Members' Bills, for which the Government proposes to provide facilities.

It may be convenient for hon. Members to know that during the following week we desire to complete the:

Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Bill.

Cinematograph Bill.

Prisons (Scotland) Bill.

Visiting Forces Bill.

These, of course, have come from another place.

Amendments may also be received from another place to Bills already passed by this House; and there may be other business, including a Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order.

We hope to allocate two more days at the request of the Opposition for debates on Civil Aviation and on Fuel and Power, with particular reference to the Ridley Report.

It is expected that Prorogation will take place either on Thursday, 30th, or Friday, 31st October, and that the new Session will be opened by Her Majesty the Queen on Tuesday, 4th November.

Mr. Attlee: In connection with the business for Thursday, the debate on the iron and steel industry, is it the intention of the Government to put down a Motion?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir.

Sir D. Savory: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could not find even half an hour to discuss the Motion on the Order Paper signed by 123 hon. Members asking the Government to instruct its representatives on the United Nations to support the American delegation in bringing before the United Nations the

unanimous report on the Katyn massacre by the Special Committee of the House of Representatives?

Mr. Crookshank: I am afraid not. I thought the House was rather impressed with the amount of work which we still have to do without adding to it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Leader of the House will agree that the forthcoming Commonwealth conference will be one of the most important held in the history of the Commonwealth. In view of that, would he consult the Prime Minister to see if it would be advisable to provide the House with an opportunity of putting forward constructive ideas for the consideration of the conference?

Mr. Crookshank: We shall be meeting again in a new Session, of course, and no doubt that matter can then be considered.

Mr. Norman Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dismay caused on his side of the House by the dropping of the Currency and Banknotes Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot say that I have noticed it.

KENYA (MAU MAU ACTIVITIES)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Sir, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about Kenya in reply to a Question put on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) yesterday but which was not reached.
Mau Mau is a secret society confined almost entirely to the Kikuyu tribe. It is an off-shoot of the Kikuyu Central Association, which was proscribed for subversive activities in 1940. It encourages racial hatred and is violently anti-European and anti-Christian. It pursues its aims by forcing secret oaths upon men, women and children and by intimidating witnesses and law-abiding Africans. It resorts to murder and other brutal and inhuman methods.
Early this year Mau Mau attacks began in the Nyeri District and then spread to the Kiambu and Fort Hall Districts in the Central Province. The situation became progressively worse. Accordingly reinforcements were brought from


other areas; many arrests were made; curfews were imposed, magistrates given enhanced powers and public meetings banned in most areas.
These measures proved insufficient because African witnesses were afraid to come forward and give evidence in face of the brutal methods and vicious reprisals of the Mau Mau against them. Africans who refused to take a Mau Mau oath have had ropes tied round their necks and have been strung up from rafters until they were unconscious. Those who have informed the police have later been found murdered. Charges against over 100 persons for administering or participating in the administration of Mau Mau oaths had to be withdrawn, because the witnesses had disappeared or been intimidated into changing their story.
Up to 13th September there had been 23 murders, including two women and three children, 12 attempted murders, four suicides, 24 hut burnings, 12 serious assaults, a church desecrated and missions attacked.
That was the situation when I received from the Acting Governor of Kenya draft legislation designed to enable the Kenya Government to deal with intimidation and to give them greater control over secret societies. On 16th September I discussed this legislation and the need for it with the Attorney-General of Kenya and the Chief Native Commissioner.
From 13th to 30th September there were at least 13 further murders, three suicides and a large number of European owned cattle were slaughtered and mutilated. During October there have been further attacks, including the murder of two European women and Senior Chief Waruhiu, a Kikuyu who had served his community and the Government nobly and loyally for a great number of years. A European was seriously wounded while protecting his wife and on 10th October Lieutenant-Colonel Tulloch, 74 years old, and his wife were savagely attacked.
The Governor reports that since 1st October four Africans are known to have been murdered. These Africans had rendered assistance in anti-Mau Mau activities. I am pleased to say that

Colonel Tulloch and his wife and Mr. Bindloss are all out of danger and making satisfactory progress.
The Governor has now reported that John Mbiu Koinange, a son of ex-Senior Chief Koinange, was charged yesterday as a principal in the murder of Chief. Waruhiu. The African driver of the car and the actual gunman, so it is alleged, are charged with him. Ex-Senior Chief Koinange and certain members of his family have been charged as accessories after the fact. The charge against John Mbiu Koinange is that he counselled and procured the murder and provided the gun.
I feel sure the House will wish me to convey their sympathy to all those who have suffered from these savage attacks. Those guilty of such crimes must be accounted the enemies of the whole law-abiding community of Kenya and not least of its African members who so overwhelmingly outnumber the lawbreakers. I wish to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government fully support the Government of Kenya in the action being taken to deal with the situation.
Of the legislation discussed with me, seven Ordinances were passed by the Kenya Legislative Council and assented to by the Governor on 3rd October. The eighth, the Societies Bill, has been referred to a Select Committee. These Ordinances give additional protection to witnesses and power to restrict the place of residence of persons associating with unlawful societies, to control traffic at night, and to control undesirable printing presses. They also increase the maximum penalties for certain offences.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself—and, I am sure, the whole of the nation—with the sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed towards all those who have suffered in this outbreak in Kenya? I should like particularly to mention one whose hospitality I was privileged to enjoy and who played such a distinguished rôle in racial co-operation in Kenya—Senior Chief Waruhiu. The Government of Kenya must get every support to put down this outbreak of violence.
We have so far seen only Press summaries of the legislation to which the Secretary of State has referred. It seems


to give extraordinary powers to the Government; they may or may not be necessary. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, whether he will place copies in the Library, so that we may be able to study the legislation, and particularly the Societies Bill? Secondly, is this legislation for a temporary period, for the duration of the emergency, or is it permanent?
There are, no doubt, underlying causes for what has happened, which may or may not be exploited. May I ask the Secretary of State whether he will be able in the very near future to announce the composition of the Royal Commission and the date upon which it will leave for Kenya? It seems to me that the sooner it is completed as a Commission and goes to Kenya, the better it will be.

Mr. Lyttelton: Nearly all this legislation is temporary and of one year's duration; it comes to an end automatically. With regard to the most contentious piece of legislation, about which I have had the most anxiety—that is, Ordinance Number 35, which deals with the right to take evidence by affidavit—it follows an Ordinance authorised during the life of the previous Government, but has three additional safeguards which I suggested to the Kenya Government and which they have readily accepted.
These three safeguards are, first, that no one is to be convicted on one affidavit; it must be supported by other corroborative evidence. The second is that these affidavits can only be sworn in front of an administrative officer, of first or second grade magisterial rank, or police officer. The third is that all convictions from magistrates' courts must be confirmed by the Supreme Court. These are three new safeguards. All the controversial legislation, if I may so call it, is of a year's duration and will come automatically to an end.

Mr. Griffiths: May we have copies in the Library?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have received very few copies—I have only just got my own—but I will certainly have copies of the legislation placed in the Library. Regarding the Royal Commission, I am not in a position to give its composition now, but I should hope to be able to do so very shortly.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any examples of the secret oaths administered by the Mau Mau?

Mr. Lyttelton: Perhaps these are two of the most dramatic:
If I am sent with four others to kill the European enemies of this organisation and I refuse, may this oath kill me.
When the reed-buck horn is blown, if I leave the European farm before killing the European owner, may this oath kill me.

Mr. T. Reid: Kenya has generally been a very law-abiding place. Can the Secretary of State say why this sudden outbreak of violence, murder and injury, even to animals, has sprung up? Secondly, can he say what is the final objective of Mau Mau, which is evidently confined to the Kikuyu tribe? Is it that they want to abolish White rule in Kenya or in the Kikuyu tribe lands, or is it that they want to get possession of the Kenya Highlands, whose wealth they evidently envy?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have some diffidence in giving the House a considered opinion about what the causes are. There are a great many causes for these secret societies. One, which perhaps will strike hon. Members as being rather curious, is that many of the tribal dances and other means of "letting off steam" have been suppressed by the missionaries, and this has given an impetus to secret societies. Other causes, no doubt, are land famine and social problems, but as regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, I think I could reply that in the main the object of the Mau Mau is to drive the Europeans out of Kenya.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the three safeguards he has today announced on the question of evidence will give very great satisfaction to a large number of Africans who have been very worried on that point? Can he make it quite clear that the majority of the Africans and Asians are in no way involved in this, and that their loyalty is a matter about which we have no doubts whatever.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am very glad to be able to reiterate what I said in my statement, that the law-abiding Africans are overwhelmingly in the majority. I hope the House will feel that the extra precautions and safeguards which we have


put in are as far as we could reasonably go in the situation with which Kenya is faced.

Mr. Bowles: Has the right hon. Gentleman read in the papers this morning the statement made by the leader of the African Members in the Kenya Legislative Council that a one-third increase in the African or native wages might prevent a great deal of the effectiveness of Mau Mau? Secondly, has the Secretary of State any information as to the social consequences and the economic effect upon the cost of living of the tribal customs of having to pay for brides in money rather than in cattle? I believe that the amount is about £100, and it takes a great deal of time to earn £100 to buy a wife. It is an important matter to know whether the right hon. Gentleman or his office has any information on this matter, which is regarded locally, I believe, as being very important.

Mr. Lyttelton: Any reply to the hon. Member's question would be largely a matter of conjecture, and I should prefer to confine myself to the facts as I know them.

Mr. Bowles: I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's office had any information.

Mr. Alport: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any evidence that Mau Mau is connected with the other Kikuyu political organisation, the Kenya African Union?

Mr. Lyttelton: I should prefer not to answer that question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman deprecate a suggestion of that kind, which can only add to the difficulties? None of us wants to add to the difficulties in Kenya.

Mr. Dugdale: Has the Secretary of State seen the report of a speech by Mr Neep, the Deputy-Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in Kenya, who has protested, I understand, against the legislation that has been introduced, saying that it is likely to lead to frame-ups and informing? Has the right hon. Gentleman any comment to make upon this?

Mr. Lyttelton: My only comment is that the moment one engages in any democratic processes, more than one point of view is likely to be aired.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman was not fair in replying to my question, which was not really concerned with matters of conjecture. I asked a simple question, to which obviously he does not know the answer. Does he, or does his Department, have any information about the cost of living rise caused by the tribal custom of having to buy brides? It is a very simple question. He does not know.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps an answer can be obtained at a later date.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th October.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(SCHEMES FOR THE PROVISION, OTHERWISE THAN BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION.)

3.51 p.m.

The Chairman: I think that the first two Amendments, in the names of the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and his hon. Friends, might be taken together. They are in page 3, line 26, after "for," insert "those members of," and, in line 26, after "population," insert:
such as stockmen whose principal duty is the charge of livestock.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, after "for" to insert "those members of."
I am placed in a peculiar position in that, since we have to discuss the details of the Amendments before we discuss the principle of the Clause, I am discussing the details of something which is only a part of a principle to which we object in toto. In regard to the question of tied houses, my right hon. and hon. Friends, equally with everyone in this Committee, are deeply concerned to ensure that agricultural workers get good houses. I think that we are all agreed on that, and there is no division of opinion.
We want the houses, but we object to the conditions imposed upon farm workers who occupy those houses. So long as the occupancy of agricultural houses compels farm workers to live under the threat of immediate and dictatorial eviction, we must register our opposition to any grant of public money to farmers and landowners for purposes of building or repairs. I have to take this occasion to oppose the Government's method of aiding the farmer, and when we reach the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill, we shall register our oppositon to the principle by voting against the Clause.
Labour is not opposed to aiding the farmers; indeed, from 1945 to 1951 farmers in this country were assisted to a degree and in a manner never experienced before in farming history. The agricultural charter which we passed made a partnership of the State, the landowner and the farmer. It seems almost a paradox, when we think of the attitude the farmer and the landowner normally take to the Labour Party, that it should have been the Labour Party, of all parties, which finally gave the landowner, or land manager, a function in society and acknowledged his position as a partner on the land. By passing that Act we brought the land, for the first time, into a comprehensive plan as a part of the nation's economy, for which the State had to accept responsibility.
As one of the partners—and a dominant partner—in agriculture, the State has from 1947 onwards pumped some hundreds of millions of pounds into the land industry of this country with a view to improving its efficiency, raising its standards and making this country more and more independent in regard to its food. Much of that money which has been pumped into the land has been used for the purposes for which it was intended. I think that in our country agriculture during that period made steps forward unequalled in any other part of the world. Our purpose is, of course, eventually to raise the standard still further so that the farmers who have not yet attained a good standard may at least approach the standard of some of the best farmers.
Of course, there are difficulties about providing subsidies, and even capital, for farmers. If it is done in the way in which we did it and put into the farmers' hands in the form of increased prices, not every farmer seems to recognise the purpose for which the State makes the money available. I had an instance the other day—not in Scotland—of a farmer telling me that his neighbour has about 300 acres and still needs to improve his equipment on the farm tremendously; but that, instead of using the money for that purpose, with the inducement of the 60 per cent. initial charges relief on income, he bought a Silver Wraith Rolls Royce. His machinery is falling into decay. Fortunately, that kind of farmer is an exception; but, because of that danger, I have always been rather in


favour of these subsidies being directional and the subsidy being given in such a way that the purpose for which it is given is indicated and it is carried towards that purpose—the fertiliser subsidies, lime subsidies, beef subsidies and machinery subsidies, and things of that kind.
Some of that money given in those years could quite well have been directed into the building of houses for farm workers, which were absolutely necessary; but the Government of which I was a member took another view. They provided the money for the building of farm cottages and allocated building materials and labour for farm building to the local authorities, whose duty it was to provide cottages for farm workers. We believed in and gave grants for the building of houses for farm workers. Last night the Secretary of State for Scotland gave figures of a considerable number of houses built for this purpose and among them houses in existence under local authority schemes. Some of these houses are really a pleasure to look at. In my constituency I have seen farm cottages attached to villages and farm workers living in them in a different atmosphere from that in which most of them have had to live for many generations.
This Bill provides for the granting of subsidies for the building of what are known as the "tied cottages." I recognise quite well that these things exist all over Scotland and all over Britain. I recognise that there is no practical way of eliminating them immediately, and also that it is a problem that is not easy to solve. I think that to some extent the party opposite and ourselves are the victims of a psychology that exists in the agricultural industry in much the same way as the mining industry was for many years the victim of its history.
The difficulty that exists in regard to tied houses of the agricultural community is due to one fact, and one fact alone. It is that farmers want to retain an almost feudal right of industrial life and death over their employees. The Farmers' Union says that there are no arbitrary evictions. I have discussed the matter with them, and they tell me that these do not exist. Here again, it is a question of fact, and I do not think it should be difficult to ascertain the facts. The agricultural workers, on the other hand, insist that these evictions take place, and

my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) last night gave examples from his own almost recent experience of families being turned out in the snow or in inclement weather without any notice whatever. I am satisfied that the public of this country will not tolerate inhuman treatment of that kind.
4.0 p.m.
Of course, if the farmers insist that they must retain that power, then beyond question we on our part must refuse to allow any public money to be granted which would in any way condone such treatment of the workers. The fact that it does not happen to all workers in the farming industry does not alter that conclusion. The fact that the farm workers feel that this threat is hanging over them is sufficient to justify the public having some say in what happens to the treatment of farm workers.
Everybody recognises that in any certain occupations, houses and jobs go together. Local authorities have to deal with their police, their janitors, their caretakers; the Coal Board has to deal with miners; the Army has to deal with soldiers; the railways have to deal with railwaymen. Even this House has to deal with the Prime Minister in that way. Some of these houses go with the jobs, but no one ever dreams of evicting people without giving due notice or without giving them some opportunity to find alternative accommodation.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Woodburn: I think he gets due notice and an opportunity to find some place to which he can remove his furniture. I am quite sure that he would not be thrown out into Downing Street in the snow to look for some other place in which to live.

The Chairman: I would point out that the Amendment deals with agricultural workers.

Mr. Woodburn: While that problem concerning the Prime Minister may arise shortly, I am sure it will be dealt with humanely. The fundamental difference in the case of agriculture is that farmers insist on the right of ruthless eviction,


even if they do not exercise it. That is foreign to every other occupation in this country, as far as I know, and it is quite foreign to the spirit of modern relations and of setting people free. We cannot condone by grants of public money such a relationship between the employer and the employee, because it has no moral or reasonable justification in modern society.
Moreover, we are also convinced that it is not good for the industry, because, if we are to attract workers into the industry, then the conditions under which they take occupancy of houses must be such that their families will be willing to go with them and will not have to suffer humiliation or indignities imposed by abitrary decisions. As far as I can see, there is neither sense nor justification in this refusal by the farmers to realise that feudal law has gone from the land. It is not the business of Parliament to use public money to perpetuate such arbitrary power of punishment without crime.
We learned from the discussions last night the even more deplorable fact that the Secretary of State has taken powers to compel local authorities to spend money on those houses, as well as having his own powers to spend money. In spite of their conscientious objections to using public money for this purpose, he has accepted the power of enforcing this upon them. We protest against this invasion of local authority rights.
We recognise and appreciate the vital need for agriculture and of good conditions for its workers. We have demonstrated that by our actions in the last five or six years. Indeed, we even recognise that if the farmers want to ensure the efficient working of their farms, it may be necessary on occasion for them to obtain possession of property in order that the workers may be able to do their jobs. But the farm worker is entitled to proper safeguards and to conditions in his home and work which are as good as those of any other citizen.
Of course, we cannot vote against the principle until we have disposed of these Amendments, and if we were properly to preserve our rights to vote against that principle, we should fail to take any opportunity available to improve the Bill, if eventually we are not able to defeat its purpose. We have taken this precaution, however. In the event of the

Secretary of State not being willing to remove the Clause, then at least we seek to improve it, as the next best step.
These Amendments are therefore designed to meet what seems to be the only possible case—certainly the only case which has been put forward—of difficulty on the farms caused by the acceptance of the principle that the local authority should provide houses for farm workers. The argument which has been advanced for the Bill is that people dealing with livestock must live within reach of the livestock, and we have certainly no desire to compel people to cycle long distances in the early morning and in inclement weather in certain parts of Scotland to look after livestock. Moreover, we have to consider the effect of such a situation upon the animals. We recognise that it may be convenient for the workers to live very near to the stock and that that is a plausible case for the perpetuation of a situation in which houses are segregated from villages.
If the principle is to be forced through in the Bill, we propose that the granting of public money should be limited to cases in which workers are dealing with stock, which would make it possible for the local authorities in the normal way to provide houses for the great number of people who follow ordinary agricultural pursuits. Nobody will suggest that in great stretches of East Lothian it is necessary for the men to live isolated from their fellows and out of the villages. Even in Ayrshire, in the great dairy centres, it is possible in many cases to have villages, and in great parts of Scotland the farm worker can live in a village—in Clackmannan and places like that—and go to his work in the same way as any one else.
The worker has the occupancy of a house, and if, eventually the farmer wishes to obtain possession of it for another farm worker, then he can use the normal processes of the law. In the main, farm workers are quite reasonable people. Indeed, I agree with the farmers and with the farm workers that all over Scotland this question is settled reasonably in perhaps 99.9 per cent. of the cases. But that justifies our attitude that it is quite unnecessary to retain this power—a power which gives a feeling of servitude to the farm worker which is quite foreign to the dignity of man.
If the Secretary of State will not, with his usual charm, withdraw the Clause altogether, then I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment. I have a suspicion that he may not withdraw the Clause, and I move the Amendment in the hope that, in such an event, this power will be retained only in the case of stockmen, in which case some justification has been advanced.

The Chairman: I would respectfully remind the Committee that if we are to have a wide debate on the Amendments, I shall feel it my duty, when the time comes, to put forthwith the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, and not allow a debate upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am bound by Standing Order No. 45, and I am only seeking to do my duty.

Mr. Hector McNeil: On a point of order. There have been some conversations, as there usually are, and there is some hope that occasionally, for the convenience of the Committee and in order to save time, more than one Amendment will be taken together. That inevitably leads to a wider debate than would take place on a single Amendment. I shall be anxious, as no doubt will my colleagues, to be guided by you, Sir Charles, but I would respectfully suggest that if, as a consequence of grouping Amendments, the discussion runs a little wide, it would not be appropriate to apply Standing Order No. 45. My submission is that if it is your feeling that we should apply the Standing Order, then we shall be compelled to ask that the Amendments be taken singly.

The Chairman: First of all, of the two Amendments we have been discussing, one is consequential, and the two must go together. All I did was respectfully to point out to the Committee that I am bound by Standing Order No. 45 that if
the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, he may … then forthwith put the question 'That the Clause … stand part of the Bill'";
and that I shall do if I am of that opinion.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: May I submit, Sir Charles, that there are many matters arising on the Clause which may be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but which

it would be quite inappropriate to discuss on an Amendment. I think that it would assist the business of the Committee—and I should feel happier myself—if you would narrow the discussion on the Amendments and allow a fuller discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: If that is the wish of the Committee; but I shall be strict, and do my best to restrict debate to the Amendments.

Mr. Woodburn: May I beg your pardon, Sir Charles, for having infringed that rule? But I think you will agree that it was a rather difficult problem. We were moving an Amendment which seemed to be accepting a principle which later on must be accepted in full, and therefore, in moving the Amendment, I thought it necessary to state the position with regard to the principle. I promise that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" I shall not repeat that argument.

Mr. J. Grimond: As I understand it, this Amendment raises a very important question as to the class of people whom this Clause is designed to help and it is to that important point that I wish to address my remarks.
It has been represented to hon. Members on this side of the Committee that this Clause is primarily designed to give assistance to occupants of tied cottages. I must say candidly that I do not see how in the north of Scotland it is possible to carry on agriculture without the tied cottage. It may be different in the south. I admit at once that the tied cottage system is open to abuse. We may get a farmer taking a grant for a tied cottage and using the cottage for other purposes besides agriculture, or we may find a farmer who is oppressive to his workers. But in the north of Scotland where we are without villages and where there are vast expanses of country and remote farms. I do not see how we can get on without those cottages. I understand that is agreed and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment.
If that is so, it seems to me essential that we bring these cottages up to a reasonable standard. If we are to get the necessary agricultural population, there is nothing, or few things, more


necessary in the north of Scotland than decent houses. I am primarily concerned to see that the agricultural population have decent houses rather than with whether those houses are tied or otherwise, provided there are safeguards to see that farmers do not turn out their tenants without adequate reason.
May we have from the Government a statement as to whom they think this Clause, as it is at present drafted, is designed to help? It seems to me that it applies to the small owner-occupier and landholders of various types, the crofter and the cottar—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I undertand it, it does raise this very question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall abide by the Ruling of Sir Charles, and I hope that when we come to discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," that will be made clear.
In my view, the Clause goes a great deal wider even than that. It can apply, as I said, to the ordinary owner, the crofter and cottar, people who are helped primarily by other Acts, and the benefit they get under other Acts may be more suitable than that under this Bill. It would be useful if we could know whether these people are eligible. I hope they are. I do not think we can confine agricultural housing strictly to people who are engaged on farms. The agricultural community is one. There is the cottar, the farmer and the crofter, and there are also men engaged in fishing and forestry and subsidiary industries.

The Chairman: This Amendment is within quite narrow limits. It deals only with stockmen in charge of livestock.

Mr. Grimond: I shall confine my remarks to that. But when it comes to the question of confining it to one class of people, those in charge of livestock, I think it would be very useful for the Committee to have the Government's view about whom this Clause, as at present drafted, should help; and whether it is intended to help other classes besides those living in tied cottages.

4.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): There has been an apparent desire to get at the principle underlying this Clause, but I do not think the Committee will expect me to deal with the general question

raised with regard to the tied cottage system. I propose to take the Committee back to the actual Amendments on the Order Paper. Later the principle may be discussed and perhaps at that stage I can answer the question regarding the particular types of people who will rank for benefit.
The effect of the two Amendments would be to limit the class of agricultural occupants for whom houses may be built with assistance under Clause 3 to stockmen or persons whose principal duty is to look after livestock. That is the meaning of the Amendments on the Order Paper, and I think we shall make more progress if we take this question by itself.
The only question that arises is whether it would be sensible and workable to introduce this rather narrow and extremely vague limitation, or whether it would be wiser and better to stand by the Bill as it is drafted. I admit that in the past I have offered the argument that the stockman, or the person who looks after livestock, if there are any priorities, has the prior claim to be on the actual holding. But we feel that to narrow the scope of this Clause by confining the grant aid to stockmen alone—even if we could define them, which is extremely doubtful—would create anomalies and would lead to a certain amount of discontent within the farming community.
For example, the grieve, an extremely important person on the farm, would be excluded. That would be one of the effects if these Amendments were carried. It would mean that some houses on the farm would be available for one type of worker and others would be left as they are. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that one type of worker or the other type have equal rights to good housing conditions. If it comes to that, so have their families. If this Amendment were carried, the family of a worker who was not a stockman would be denied the improved conditions offered to a brother worker, and his family. Arbitrary conditions of this sort would probably lead to discontent among the farming community.
There is another example which I could give and which reveals another aspect of this question. I quote it because it is within my own experience during the past year. It often happens, if one is trying to be what is called progressive,


that one has to change the economy of an agricultural holding. It may be that one farm is pushed in with another, because of some change of policy. Under these Amendments, if a grant were received in respect of a stockman on farm No. 2, and at a later date the farmer changed his economy and took the stockman to another farm, the new occupant of the vacated house might not be a stockman, and therefore the owner would be in breach of agreement and would have to repay his grant. That would lead to confusion and create a certain amount of discontent.
We take the view that, if we are to offer a grant, it should, in the interests of the industry, be made available for all members of the agricultural population, and not be confined to one class of worker. We wish to offer these grants to all members of the agricultural population, which really answers the question put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Under Clause 3, assistance is given for the building of a new house, whether it is to replace an unfit house or not and whether it is tied or not, for all members of the agricultural population as defined in the Act of 1950. If the hon. Gentleman cares to turn up the definition in that Act, he will find full particulars as to the people to whom we are offering assistance.
For the reasons I have given, I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think all hon. Members of the Committee will agree that the Under-Secretary has been most painstaking in giving the Government's reasons for resisting this Amendment, but he will not be surprised when I say that he has not entirely convinced some of us.
He has said that this proposal will leave the position in a most unsatisfactory and vague way. We do not claim that these words and only these words could give effect to what is obviously intended by those who put this Amendment on the Order Paper. I should have thought that, if the Government had any sympathy at all with what we are seeking to do, they could have found words which would remove that vagueness.
However, the Under-Secretary went on to say that, if this Amendment was

accepted, we should spend taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to build a house for the grieve, who is a farm manager——

Mr. Snadden: The grieve is not necessarily a farm manager. The term is used in Scotland very often for a senior workman on a farm, and, if the hon. Gentleman does not know that, I confess I am rather surprised.

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry to quarrel with the Under-Secretary, but I do know what a grieve is, and he is not an ordinary worker. He is a farm worker, but not in the ordinary sense, and we find a grieve employed on a farm because the farmer himself does not live on the farm or manage it himself. I suggest to the Committee that we have no more right to give the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to the landowner or farmer, in order that he may build the house for his grieve, than we have to give it to the local co-operative society to build a house for the store manager.
The Committee will surely bear in mind that, on every occasion on which we have discussed the tied cottage in agriculture both in Committee and in the House of Commons since 1945, hon. Members on that side have made the case for the tied house on the basis that the tied house was absolutely essential to the farm worker who is in charge of livestock. We give them that in the Amendment.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the agricultural worker in East Lothian. There are so many agricultural workers who have nothing at all to do with livestock. They are engaged in cropping agriculture or they work on the farm buildings. Has anyone suggested that a tractor driver must live on the farm? Is there any more reason why a farmer or landowner should get a grant from public funds to build a house for a tractor driver than that the British Transport Commission should receive a grant to build a house for a local truck driver? The two men are doing very similar jobs. The ordinary driver employed by any public works contractor in driving a mechanical implement is not very different from the tractor driver.
It really is monstrous that at this time the Government should propose that public money should be given to the landowners and the farmers of this country ad lib to build houses for whoever they will. Nobody will contradict


me when I say that, in over six years at the Scottish Office, I had innumerable discussions with the National Farmers' Union and the landowners, when they made representations to me about the tied cottage, in which they never once asked for the tied cottage for anyone other than a person in charge of livestock.

Mr. John MacLeod: Did the hon. Gentleman allow the farmers to build ad lib during his term of office?

Mr. Fraser: I do not want to indulge in any discussion which would be out of order, but I will say that I am not aware of any farmers who wished to build in recent years who were not permitted to do so.
This is the important point. Since 1945, the landowners and farmers of Scotland, in making their representations, consistently asked for permission to build, and for public assistance in building, cottages for those workers who were in charge of livestock. It is monstrous that at the present time the Government should feel obliged to resist this modest Amendment, which seeks to limit the use of public money for this purpose to that very class of person whom they have chosen to use for so many years as the very person in agriculture for whom a tied cottage is absolutely essential.
There is no justification for it at all. The farmer and landowner are to be given public money to provide houses for their employees and in a way in which no other employer in the country is able to enjoy such assistance from public funds. I think that is wrong, and I hope that the Committee will agree with me in the view I have expressed.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: We must be quite frank about this. We certainly have no intention of delaying the passage of the Bill, but we also have no intention of allowing the wild misrepresentation which went on hour after hour yesterday to continue without reply. Here is an attack designed to deprive the tractor man of the benefits of a new and cheap house, and we are not standing for it. That is the argument of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) who has

just spoken. It is an attack on the tractor driver. Why should he have a house cheap, says the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. T. Fraser: That is not my argument at all. We have provided in Clause 2 of this Bill, which we cannot now discuss, that the tractor man may enjoy the benefit of a house provided by the local authority.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Anybody who listened to the speeches yesterday, or who has read them today in HANSARD, will realise that the whole basis of the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite yesterday was that, under the provisions of this Bill, the local authorities would stop building. They said so in terms, but here are people willing to build. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) said so.
Here are people who are willing to build far more cheaply to the community and to the occupiers of the house, and willing to build houses with every single amenity for which they asked—drainage, hot and cold water, inside sanitation and all these things. [Interruption.] Certainly, all these things will be provided; admittedly, they will be provided under this Clause. But they will be forbidden if the Amendment is carried. Therefore, says the hon. Gentleman opposite, forbid it. It is not true that the local authority will be able to build and to forbid anybody else to build.
The result of this sort of argument, which has often been brought before the Committee and the House of Commons on such occasions as this debate, is this attempt to stop the provision of good houses at low rents for agricultural workers. That is the intention, and that is the ground upon which it was defended by hon. Members opposite. Nobody thinks that the rents of these houses will be far below what would have been charged by the local authorities.
Everyone knows that a local authority cottage commands a rent far above the figure at which an agricultural worker can pay for his accommodation. Everyone knows that, and everyone knows, too, that in many cases these houses are refused by agricultural workers because they do not wish to pay those rents. But out of pure prejudice, particularly in the case of the hon. Member for Hamilton, who had the honour for so long to have


high responsibility for agriculture in Scotland, it is said "Forbid it," and the hon. Member for Hamilton cites the tractor man as a specific example.
4.30 p.m.
He ought to know; he must know—he is a very intelligent man who has been in close touch with these matters for years—that the agricultural industry of Scotland is one of stock and crops and that it would be practically impossible under such an Amendment as the one we are discussing to draw a dividing line and to say that people such as those mainly concerned with stock should have this benefit, but that no other agricultural worker should.
What kind of definition could be applied to all our West Country, and to all the northern farmers mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? A few cases of purely arable agriculture exist in Scotland. They are not the majority of cases. The majority are mixed agriculture, which is the glory of Scotland and which has been its standby in many different conditions in the past. These are the people to whom we think good houses at low rents should be made available: these are the people for whom we shall vote when we vote down this Amendment, and I trust that the Committee will stand by us in this.

Mr. Woodburn: I think something ought to be said about the remarks made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). First, I want to ask him with what authority he speaks for the farm workers of Scotland. He may have some special authority to speak for them, but the Union of Farm Workers in Scotland entirely repudiate his point of view. He may say that the Union does not speak for all the farm workers, but I have had experience, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), of discussing this matter with both farm workers and farmers.
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said, that the only argument put forward by the farmers is one in favour of the necessity to have tied houses for stockmen, which is the Amendment before us. They have never tried to argue the case for tied houses for the normal agricultural worker who can get home to his village.

Mr. Snadden: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman realises that the Labour Government legislation of 1946 actually increased the grant, and that grants are available today for tied houses, provided they are built to replace other houses, for all classes of agricultural workers?

Mr. Woodburn: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that position in regard to this matter, then we are prepared to reconsider our attitude towards both the Amendment and the Clause. If the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance on behalf of the Government that he accepts the principle laid down by the Labour Government at that time, then we are prepared to reconsider the matter. Is he? I see he is not.

Mr. McNeil: The interjection was pointless.

Mr. Woodburn: We will get back to the real argument. The farm workers take the view that they are the only people free to speak for the farm worker because at the moment a worker in a tied cottage does not feel free to express his opinion. That is one of the problems associated with tied cottages. So long as a man has not only his own livelihood, but the very roof over the heads of his wife and children threatened if he dares to show any liberty at all, he suffers a fear which is not justified in a modern community.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to believe that there are no Labour members among the agricultural workers of Scotland, that there are no members of the Labour Party who attend Labour meetings and who speak on Labour platforms?

Mr. Woodburn: I know there are plenty of intelligent farm workers in Scotland who vote Labour, but that is a different point altogether. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that a personal friend of mine could not at one time even go to a Liberal meeting in his constituency without his job being threatened. That shows that at one time such people could not even go so far as to express a Liberal point of view, let alone a Labour point of view.
The fact is that so long as people have that fear something must be done about it. It does not matter whether the fear


is justified or not. The point is that there should not be the cause for that fear. I do not think that the Minister can justify the principle that without any notice of any kind a farmer or his wife should be able to threaten the farm worker and his wife with immediate eviction and without any appeal to any other authority. That principle cannot be justified in modern society.
We are not denying the farmer the right to have possession of the cottage, nor are we denying him the right to subsidise the rent and to give his employee a cheap house. All we are asking for today is that the farm worker should be given the same rights as those enjoyed by every other citizen in the community.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is not the Amendment. The Amendment says that certain people are not to get the benefit of the Clause; they are to be cut out of the Clause. Stick to the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: We are proposing that the benefits of this Clause should be given to the people on whose behalf the farmers have argued. Therefore, if the farmers are prepared to argue that it is only essential in the case of stockmen who have to live near the livestock, then, if the Clause is to be carried, we are prepared to say it should only be carried for the purpose for which it has been asked and not in order to give authority to build houses for grieves and all sorts of other people who receive sufficient wages to enable them to live in a decent house of their own. There is no reason why a grieve should not live in a village. The idea that he must live on a farm is nonsense. There is not a place in Midlothian where a grieve is compelled to live on a farm, and with motor cars and modern transport available to people nowadays there is no reason why he should.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: I think the right hon. Gentleman would find that the majority of grieves in East Lothian if given the choice would elect to live on the farm and not elsewhere.

Mr. Woodburn: Then we have to protect the wives and children of the farm workers.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Against their husbands' choice?

Mr. Woodburn: Their children are entitled, at any rate, to have schools within reasonable distance of their homes and to be required to travel a large number of miles to get to school.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Hundreds of miles?

Mr. Woodburn: No, many miles.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Transport is provided.

Mr. Woodburn: An ideal arrangement is to have the schools within easy reach of home. There are very few farmers in Midlothian today who cannot afford to provide their grieves with cars in order to facilitate their work. This insistence on trying to provide houses on farms for everybody is just nonsense in an era of quick transport such as we now enjoy. Motor cycles and cars are available to the higher paid employees on the better farms in Midlothian.
We say that if the Clause must go through, it should be limited to the people for whom the farmers have argued. I do not think hon. Members are justified in claiming for the farm workers more than the farmers themselves have asked for. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree to accept this Amendment.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I wish to say a word about something said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). When you, Sir Charles, were laying down the conditions that we must observe in these debates——

The Chairman: I did not lay down any conditions; I am governed by the Standing Orders.

Mr. Pryde: —I thought that, perhaps, the Government Front Bench may have arrived at something like a compromise, because, after all, life is a compromise. The Front Bench opposite will agree that this Amendment is a compromise from this side of the Committee. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove rose in desperation to try and save something from the wreck. Like a drowning man clutching at a straw, he grasped at the tractor.
I want to go back to what the Joint Under-Secretary of State said about building houses for agricultural workers in certain areas. Farmers and landlords ire Scotland have always based their arguments for the tied cottage on the man who looks after the stock. The Joint Under-Secretary says that we would have difficulty in defining who is in charge of stock. His right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour has no difficulty in determining that point, because applications for deferment are decided by the Ministry of Labour, and therefore the farmer has no difficulty in determining the matter.
What sort of house can one build in an isolated part in Peebleshire? There is no piped water supply, no drainage, it is far away from schools; and rural schools are being abolished. Is it not far better if the farm worker is housed in a community established by the county council where it is easy for the authorities to educate the children and where there is piped water and drainage? We on this side of the Committee, recognising all the practical difficulties, have arrived at this compromise, and we ask the Government to accept it.
The stock of this country is valuable. Hon. Members should consider the prices obtained for stock in southern Scotland to-day. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove said that I had stated that the local authorities in south-east Scotland were going to refuse to build houses. I was referring to the Convention of Border Burghs which met in Peebles a fortnight ago. Is it not perfectly true to say that that was the statement which was issued to the Press after that meeting? If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cares, I will take him to burghs in Midlothian where the authorities say that the conditions laid down in this Bill will make it impossible to build.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely the hon. Member is emphasising the point. If the local authorities are not going to build,

that knocks the whole bottom out of his case, and the houses have to be provided otherwise.

Mr. Pryde: The Conservative Party have laid it down that they will build 300,000 houses. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have emphasised to their own Front Bench that they should see that those 300,000 houses are built. Now the Government are placing on the Statute Book a Bill under which the local authorities will find it impossible to build the houses. We on this side of the Committee are providing the Government with a means whereby they can be helped to build some of those 300,000 houses. But we refuse to give them arbitrary power of life and death over the bodies and souls of men, women and children.
4.45 p.m.
On the benches of the silent Members opposite, surely there is at least one kindly soul who reacts to the Christian ethic. Or is there? I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to give this matter full consideration and to remember when he is exercising power that the Good Book did not give to any section of the community power of life and death over fellow men and women.

Major Anstruther-Gray: The reason I support the Government in opposing this Amendment quite simply is that I see that the Amendment will restrict the benefit of the Clause to stockmen. Hon. Members opposite accept the fact that it will be a benefit to stockmen, but they are anxious to exclude from that benefit tractor drivers and grieves. I think that tractor drivers and grieves and their families in many cases will prefer to live close to their work at the farm rather than elsewhere. For that reason I believe that this Clause will be welcomed by the bulk of the agricultural community in Scotland.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 189.

Clunie, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan, W.
Ross, William


Crosland, C. A. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Short, E. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McInnes, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Field, W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sparks, J. A.


Forman, J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Steele, T.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Glanville, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Manuel, A. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Messer, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hamilton, W. W.
Morley, R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hannan, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hardy, E. A.
Moyle, A.
Timmons, J.


Hargreaves, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Holman, P.
Pannell, Charles
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hubbard, T. F.
Paton, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Poole, C. C.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pryde, D. J.



Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Janner, B.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson and


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Mr. Royle.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Heald, Sir Lionel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Edward


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baker, P. A. D.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Holland-Martin, C. J


Baldwin, A. E.
Dtedes, W. F.
Holt, A. F.


Barber, Anthony
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Horobin, I. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Beamish, Maj. Tuften
Donner, P. W.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drewe, G.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Birch, Nigel
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hurd, A. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Black, C. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erroll, F. J.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fell, A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kaberry, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bullard, D. G.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bullock, Capt. M.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lambton, Viscount


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Butcher, H. W.
Gower, H. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, H. N.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimond, J.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Channon, H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
McCallum, Major D.


Cole, Norman
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKibbin, A. J.

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out from "assistance," to the end of line 42, and to insert:
(b) the house contains a bathroom with a fixed bath and hot and cold water provided, a kitchen with a sink and hot and cold water provided, a water closet and such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance, and
(c) the house is in replacement of an existing unsatisfactory house or other premises occupied as a dwelling by a member of the agricultural population.
For the purposes of this subsection "unsatisfactory house or other premises" means houses or other premises which are unfit for human habitation and which are not capable of being rendered so fit at reasonable expense.
I take it that it will be convenient if we take this Amendment together with the other Amendment standing in my name: In page 3, line 42, at end, insert:
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection no assistance under this section shall be given in respect of the replacement of any house or other premises unless such action has been taken under Part 2 of the principal Act as will secure that the house or premises will be demolished on the completion of the house provided in replacement thereof or will not thereafter be used for human habitation.

The Chairman: I think that we should also take the Amendment in page 4, line 1, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 3. I think the three Amendments go together.

Mr. McNeil: I quite agree. I do not anticipate that this will be a long discussion. I am considerably fortified by the fact that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—who, I am sure, will soon be back

in his place—has already indicated his willingness to support us in the substance of the Amendments standing in my name, and I know from the discussion which our colleagues had on the English Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing is also kindly disposed towards the intention of our Amendments.
Since the right hon. and gallant Member has just returned to his place, I ought to say in courtesy that I am fortified by the assurance which he gave during the preceding discussion, that he was in favour of the substance of these Amendments. If the Government resist them I shall look for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in our Lobby, because we shall certainly divide upon this issue.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is on the development of the argument that I hope to be able to support the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNeil: That is very flattering; but I am much more cheered by the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman flatly committed himself to the support of the principle without waiting for the argument to be developed. That is an attitude of mind which I expect in such a distinguished scientist as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because these proposals are self-evident. In the first place we argue that where public funds are to be made available for the building of tied cottages, these tied cottages shall conform broadly to the same standard of amenities as those which


would be found in houses constructed in any urban area and attracting public funds.
Secondly, we argue that these proposals should not attract public funds unless there is an undertaking that on the completion of the building the previous unfit dwelling shall be so taken care of as not to be available for human habitation. This is not a new or revolutionary proposal. Since the Act of 1938, passed by a Government in which the right hon. and gallant Member was a very influential Member, that principle has been adhered to, and it would certainly be a most extraordinary sight to see Her Majesty's Government proving themselves even more reactionary than the Government of 14 years ago.
We are being driven to a curious position when Her Majesty's Government decides to be more backward than a steel master; more 19th-century than any reputable haulier, and now more reactionary than the Government which is usually remembered as the 1938 Government. It will be very interesting to see if any hon. Member opposite tries to support resistance to this Amendment.
We are not arguing in a vicious fashion. We are saying, first, that if an agricultural worker suffers the disadvantage of being a tied worker he should not be further imposed upon by being forced to accept a lower standard of housing than his fellow citizens in the towns or the cities.
5.0 p.m.
Secondly, we say that if public funds are to be invested under these penalising conditions in houses in respect of which the farmer enjoys a power of life and death which few other employers in the country enjoy, the Committee has an obligation to see that public funds are wisely invested. That means that elementary standards must be safeguarded.
The standards for which we ask are not at all ambitious. We ask that there shall be a bathroom and a kitchen, and that these shall have a supply of hot and cold water. We ask that the kitchen shall have a sink and we ask that the family shall have a lavatory. It may be argued that it is not possible to provide such supplies in all cases. I suppose that that may unhappily be true, but that is not the proposition.
The proposition, unless this Amendment is to be accepted, is that such sub-scale development should attract public funds, and that would be a most extraordinary position. Her Majesty's Government are in this case even more suspect than usual because the Committee will recollect that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has already committed himself to the proposition that we should rush ahead with the provision of sub-standard houses.
To be fair, the hon. and gallant Member the Joint Under-Secretary of State last night gave us an assurance that that was not the Government's intention. I wish to be perfectly fair to him and to admit that the assurance was not given in relation to this Clause, but I think and certainly hope that he meant it as a general undertaking. The hon. and gallant Gentleman nods his head. That is splendid. I take it that he will accept the Amendment?
I must test the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intentions against the words of the Bill. Does he intend to say to me that he finds the words used in the Amendment to be a little indelicately drawn or something of that kind? I invite him to intervene and say that the substance of our Amendment will be taken care of, and we can then get on to the next part of the Bill.
I see no response, and in view of that it is quite plain that the Government are not going to honour this undertaking that only houses conforming to certain elementary standards will attract public funds. That is a great disappointment, a most reactionary attitude—more reactionary, I repeat, than the 1938 Act.
Our second proposition brings us to that Act. It will be an entirely new development if a Member of a Government is to argue to this Committee that public funds should be made available to continue to increase the number of sub-standard houses in our country. That is why we follow on inevitably and logically with our second Amendment, which provides that the sub-standard houses—those premises unfit for human habitation—shall no longer be occupied on the completion of the house which attracts subsidy.
There is impartial and expert advice upon this subject. We have had the report of a committee upon it. That


report states that it would be improper that these agricultural workers, forced to live in tied houses, should have the double penalty imposed upon them of having to live in sub-standard tied houses. We have had an indication from the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he disapproves of it, and we have had an undertaking from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, a little more precisely perhaps than from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it is a proposal which he also supports.
Here is a chance to proceed against agricultural slums. Here is a chance to use public funds to see that our agricultural population shall not be further diminished. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an unambiguous undertaking on both these points, otherwise we shall be compelled to divide, and we shall rejoice in finding the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove with us.

Mr. J. Stuart: I hope that the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) will be satisfied with at any rate part of my reply to the first part of his Amendment, because I wish to make it clear to him at the beginning, and to assure him most sincerely, that there is no intention on our part of seeing public funds used on what he called sub-standard houses. That is far from being the case.
I hope, however, to be able to satisfy him and the other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen associated with him that there is no need for at least the first part of his Amendment. I say that because, although it is quite true that the 1938 Act did specify the conveniences mentioned in the Amendment, there are reasons why that is not necessary today. For example, internal piped water and sinks are made obligatory under the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946.
Further, conditions change, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree, and we hope they will continue to change for the better; and ideas as to what is desirable and necessary are liable to change in this respect. For example, we now consider that both a proper larder and fuel store are necessary conveniences in new houses, and they will be insisted upon.
As soon as this Bill becomes law, if it does, as I hope it will, a model scheme will be introduced forthwith and published to local authorities, giving them guidance on all these points, and the

conveniences mentioned in the Amendment will be included in that model scheme. There will be additions to those conveniences specified in the Amendment.

Mr. James McInnes: Will the scheme confine itself exclusively to houses for the agricultural population, or will it relate to houses generally?

Mr. Stuart: It will deal with houses for the agricultural population.
I would, therefore, ask the Committee not to press this matter because there will be no delay, certainly no undue delay, in publishing the model scheme. Therefore, there will be no undue delay in local authorities being able to get ahead with their plans. As I say, all the conveniences mentioned, and others, will be incorporated in the model scheme.
The other effect of the Amendment is to restrict the scope of the Measure to the replacement of unsatisfactory houses or other premises occupied as dwellings by members of the agricultural population. The Government's object, of course, as I think the Committee will be aware now, is to widen the scope so as to give assistance to all houses built for occupation by members of the agricultural population. We do not any longer wish to restrict it purely to replacement. I may fail to carry the right hon. Gentleman with me in connection with this second part of his Amendment, but I think it is much better that I should make that statement quite frankly. That is our intention.
We want to encourage housing for agricultural districts—good housing, up-to-date housing. It is probably one of the most important factors today in maintaining a healthy, happy agricultural population, and encouraging it to stay in those areas; which is itself so important for our food production drive. I, therefore, hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

Mr. McNeil: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I would say that I do not want to be unreasonable. We all know the legend of the good Secretary of State. Would the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, say to us that he will see if he can find a form of words to amend subsection (1) of Clause 3 under which he has power to make schemes—


to amend that to indicate that a scheme would have to embody those minimum standards?

Mr. Stuart: I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will examine that point. I will. I have not considered it, and I do not know what form of words is possible. As I pointed out just now, these things are liable to change; and, of course, to specify definite conveniences in an Act of Parliament would necessitate legislation to amend that Act if we wanted to add something like a porch—whatever it may be: I mention a porch only for example. I will look into the point.

Mr. T. Fraser: I hope the Secretary of State will remember that yesterday evening we had a rather heated discussion on an Amendment, which was followed by a Division, he having resisted the Amendment on that occasion because the words we were seeking to leave out of Clause 1 of the Bill were words that were contained in the Act of 1938. His only justification for them was that those words were contained in the Act of 1938. Well, the second paragraph of the Amendment he is now resisting was lifted in its entirety from the 1938 Act, so if the argument was of any value at all last night it is a great pity he has not sought to repeat it today.

Mr. Stuart: It is hardly a similar point.

Mr. Fraser: It is a much more valid one, because this is a much more valuable provision in the 1938 Act than the one the right hon. Gentleman insisted on last night.

Mr. McNeil: It may facilitate the work of the Committee if I indicate that, with that undertaking, I am prepared to withdraw the first part of my Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNeil: I think it would be unreasonable to carry to a Division the first part of my Amendment in the circumstances, but, on the other hand, the second part of the Amendment has not been taken care of.

The Temporary Chairman: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the second

Amendment? It is consequential. If the first Amendment fails the second Amendment will fail.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I was thinking of paragraph (c), but, although I am a little surprised by undertakings from the Government to meet such points of view as ours, I think I had better withdraw the whole Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(4) No assistance shall be given under this section in respect of any application if the applicant owns any other house within a distance of two miles from the site of any proposed additional house in respect of which assistance is sought and such other house is occupied by a person other than a member of the agricultural population or is unoccupied and is fit for occupation.
In view of the response we have received for some of the earlier Amendments of ours I am not very hopeful this one will prove acceptable to the Government. I think I may, however, say in a few sentences what it is we have in mind. We are seeking here to deny the assistance to the farmer or landowner who has a house within a reasonable distance of the site of the proposed new house and such other house is occupied by a person who is not an agricultural worker or is unoccupied and is fit for occupation.
We know of cases—I could mention the names of individual farmers, but it would be wrong of me to do so in Committee—and particularly on the Ayrshire coast, of houses which were formerly farmworkers' houses which are now let as holiday houses. They are occupied only for part of the year. They were originally farmworkers' houses. I should think myself that it would be wrong—wrong of us, wrong of the Government, wrong of the local authorities—to give to the owner of that house a grant from public funds to enable him to build a house in which he would accommodate a farmworker who really ought to be in the holiday house. I should think that there would be common agreement on that point, and I should like to think the Government were sympathetic to the point of view I am now expressing.
I think it possible, however, that the Amendment I have put down is not one


which deals with that case alone, and that it will deal with other cases; maybe there are some technical objections to the Amendment as it is presently drafted. That, however, is the kind of case we have in mind. Let us all appreciate that when we pass an Act of Parliament those who can benefit from it will take the utmost benefit out of it.
Again, I know of cases of farmers who have got possession of a house which has been occupied by a tenant for 30 or 40 years and that tenant has been protected for the last 30 years under the Rent Restriction Acts—cases where the farmer has bought the house and, having bought that house, was able to get a certificate to terminate the tenancy of the tenant. There have been many cases in Scotland.
There can be few sheriff courts, if any, in Scotland that have not considered cases for the eviction of tenants, and supported by certificates from the Department of Agriculture. Having done that, the farmer has in some cases—I cannot say in many cases, but in some cases—in a very short time found the house no longer needed that he got as essential for the worker on the farm, and has sold it to an owner occupier. He has sold it, making a fat profit. I do not suggest for a moment that that is a common occurrence, but it is happening.
Let us see what could so easily happen if we do not impose the kind of restriction which I seek to impose by this Amendment. A farmer can get assistance under the 1950 Act for the improvement of an existing farm cottage. Having got it he may decide to let somebody else into the cottage and then build another cottage for the farm worker, getting a grant under this Bill to build a cottage for that same farm worker. He gets two grants in respect of the same worker. Again, I do not say that will happen on every farm in Scotland, but it is something which could easily happen, and will happen unless we protect ourselves against it.
I ask the Government seriously to consider, either accepting this Amendment or between now and Monday evening, when I understand we are to have the Report stage, putting something on the Order Paper which will prevent the kind of abuses which will undoubtedly arise if the Clause remains unamended.

Mr. Snadden: I am afraid that we cannot find it possible to accept this Amendment, which apparently seeks to confine the payment of grants to cases where, in the absence of other houses near at hand in the same ownership, there is no alternative to the building of a new house. One could say here that the yardstick which would be applied would be "is your house really necessary?" That is about what it seems to me to come down to. For my part, I cannot imagine anybody wishing to build a house today at present costs, even with grant aid, unless the houses were really necessary to the proper working of an agricultural holding or property.
If there is any doubt as to whether or not the house is necessary, surely it would be better to leave it to a local authority; it is within their discretion to decide whether or not a grant should be given; they have a lot to do with the financial part of it; they are in possession of all the facts, and their local representatives know the local set-up in regard to a property or a farm. We feel that it would be very much better to leave the decision to them than to lay down arbitrary conditions in a Bill of this sort, such as the hon. Gentleman suggests in his Amendment.
I have some sympathy with what he said about the certificate system. I think it can lead to hardship. But I think he would agree that there the onus is upon the agricultural executive committee, and where an injustice does somehow or another arise it must be because that particular committee has not been attending to its work. When he occupied the position I now occupy he found it necessary to retain that system, which operated during and after the war years. Nevertheless, I agree that there are some things about the system which can lead to trouble.
If we were to put these proposed words into the Bill I can see a number of difficulties arising. It is true that under the certificate system eviction could be secured; but that is if a person were there under the Rent Restriction Acts. It does not necessarily follow that it would be secured; it is problematical; the sheriff has the power to turn down the application, even in such a case.
What I think would be more serious would be if an owner were applying for


a grant and this Amendment were accepted, and there were within two miles of him a house in which the widow of one of his own workers were living. There was a case of which I know not far from me, where an aged farm worker who had given very long service of about 26 years found a house quite close to the holding. I am sure neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else would want us to go out of our way to encourage the eviction of such people—widows, dependants and aged farm workers.
The biggest problem today in rural housing is to find alternative accommodation for the aged farm worker when his time is up. These people have served their day, and if the proprietor or farmer is a reasonable person as most of them are, and has a decent frame of mind, he will try to find a little house for the man who has served him all that time. Under this Amendment we would have to put such a man out of the house, and I do not think that would be very sensible. I hope that for these reasons the Committee will think it wiser to leave the Clause as it is, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Frankly, I am not happy with the wording or form of this Amendment, although I have some sympathy with what it sets out to try to put an end to, namely, the abuse of assistance from public funds which are used in creating values in properties from which profits for individuals are later taken from other people without regard to the real purpose or intention of the assistance originally given.
I feel that I cannot support the Amendment as it stands, because I think it could give rise to very serious cases of injustice. I know that was not in the minds of my hon. Friends in framing the Amendment, but such cases are possible. Under the literal application of this Amendment it would be possible for very serious injustices to certain occupiers to arise, and I therefore could not support it. I am not in sympathy with giving funds to landowners to build houses to be retained as their property. But, accepting that that is to be done, how does this Amendment apply?
Let us take the hypothetical case of two farm landlords, one wealthier than the other. The wealthier of the two wants to house five stockmen; he wants assistance, he is able to prove his case, and so gets his assistance for all five houses. Then along comes his neighbour who is not so wealthy, who also wants assistance for five stockmen, but he happens to have on his land a cottage or two, which he may have built himself, or may have bought with the farm, possibly quite recently. Because he already has, within two miles, cottages with tenants or occupiers, he does not get assistance for housing from public funds. His intention to house his stockmen with public assistance is frustrated right away, and the only alternative is for him to build them himself with his own money.
Above all, the conditions laid down in the Amendment could be harsh indeed in their effect on some tenants. It is all very well to refer to the "holiday tenant" who occupies a cottage for only a few weeks in the year; but under the implied suggestion of the Amendment a person in humble circumstances, not able to find alternative accommodation in the county which would be suitable for his or her work and needs, could be evicted. If the tenant has a full tenancy with protection under the Rent Restriction Acts, it might or might not be possible to evict and secure the house for a landworker. But, except under very great difficulty and pressure of greater hardship it would not be desirable to get the tenant out at all.
Again, if the tenant is a tenant at will without any protection he is a much more pitiable case and deserving of compassion rather than the rough treatment under this Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
It is all very well to say that we have the extreme case of holiday tenants. There may be other classes, too, who would not suffer unbearable hardship by losing the use of a second or casual cottage or house. But we must, above all, concern ourselves with avoiding real hardship and injustice to the residing occupants of these cottages which, in terms of this Amendment, would be taken over for stockmen or others. It would have to be proved that the persons being removed have alternative accommodation no worse than that from which they are to be evicted.
These are difficulties in my mind, and I feel that I ought to express them, because if the Amendment does involve any possible injustice, I feel that one should not support it in its present form. But I suggest that the Joint Under-Secretary of State should consider the purpose of this Amendment, and whether it is not possible to bring in some provision to meet the point of my hon. Friend and avoid the abuse of this assistance which is being offered. I think that it should be possible to tighten up very considerably the conditions regarding the future disposal of these properties assisted by public funds. I cannot, in honesty, support the Amendment in its present form while it involves the possibility of injustice to tenants whom it would not be reasonable to turn out of their homes.

Mr. T. Fraser: In view of what has been said, I do not feel disposed to press the Amendment. I think that the Committee will remember that when moving the Amendment I said that I was not very happy about its drafting, and that I appreciated that there were many objections to it. I appealed to the Joint Under-Secretary to listen to the arguments so that he might appreciate what it was we were trying to do. I ask him to consider whether he can do something himself between now and Monday next to provide the protection for which I have been looking.
I had in mind the position of the farmer who was a good farmer and a kindly farmer and who did not seek to turn out the widow of a previous worker, and of the farmer who did not seek to turn out from what had been a tied cottage the worker who had retired. I would be the last to ask that such a farmer should be less well-treated than his neighbour who turns out the widow a week after her husband has died or who turns out of his cottage the farm worker a week after he has finished his employment on the farm. I do not want any provision in the Statute which will lead to discrimination against the best kind of farmer.
I appreciate that the Amendment as at present drafted is inefficient to deal with the abuse to which I have called attention and at the same time to offer reasonable protection to people whom we would not like to see disturbed in the tenancy or accommodation which they enjoy at the present time.
It would be foolish of me to continue this discussion, but I asked the Joint Under-Secretary to consider whether he can do something before Monday. It is possible that he may find ways to meet the case which we have put forward. The Joint Under-Secretary has expressed some sympathy with what I have said and, therefore, with these few comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. John Rankin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, at the end, to insert:
and shall communicate the grounds of refusal in writing to the applicant.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we also discussed the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley)—page 4, line 9, at end, insert:
Provided that in any case where assistance under this section is refused the local authority shall specify the grounds of their refusal.

Mr. Rankin: In moving this Amendment, standing in the name of my hon. Friends, I hope that the Government will give consideration to it on two grounds. The first is that the Amendment, which is a fairly simple one, commands support not only from this side of the Committee but also from the Government side, in view of the subsequent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), which is on the same lines as the one which I am now proposing. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State, if he pays no attention to his own side, will at least pay some attention to this side of the Committee.
The second reason is this: We are not suggesting in any way that a local authority will have anything but sound reasons for any decision to refuse financial aid when it decides to do so. We make no allegations along those lines, but all refusals for financial aid will naturally cause disturbance in the minds of those who have made the applications. We feel that it would be of great help to the individual and also to the local authority if the reasons for the refusal of financial assistance were clearly communicated in


writing to the individual who has made the application. I think that would be quite a sound practice, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I hardly anticipated that in the course of today's proceedings I should find myself in the position of seconding an Amendment put forward by an hon. Member on the other side of the Committee. I have great pleasure in seconding the proposal made by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), although not perhaps for the reasons he has adduced. It will be apparent that Clause 3 (6) gives the local authority absolute discretion to turn down any applications for a grant for the improvement of a tied cottage. I think that it is not outside the bounds of possibility in this imperfect world that a local authority composed in the main of the political supporters of the hon. Member for Tradeston might, because of their bias against the tied cottage system, turn down the applications.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to make one point clear. We are not interfering with the farmers building their own tied cottages. We are discussing giving public money to farmers and giving public approval to a principle which is the farmers own business.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that we have moved far away from those considerations. We discussed them one and a-half hours ago. We are now considering the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Tradeston which deals with the fairly narrow case of subsection 6, under which the local authority has the power to refuse arbitrarily its approval of grant aid for the impovement of cottages. I was merely suggesting that a local authority composed of supporters of the hon. Member for Tradeston might, because of its dislike of the principle of tied cottages, seek to refuse a grant. If it is going to do that it ought to divulge the reasons for its refusal. That is where I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member, though possibly for different reasons.
I had brought to my notice the case of a proprietor who applied to a county

council; the application was refused, and he asked the reason why. He was told, in effect, that, after long and careful consideration by the appropriate committee, the application had been refused and that since no reasons for the refusal had been minuted it was not competent for the official who was replying to the letter to say why the application was refused.
If an applicant is to be denied the benefits of modernisation, it should not be done without his being given the reason. I believe that the reasons ought to be made public. My Amendment goes a little further than that proposed by the hon. Member for Tradeston, but I am prepared to support his Amendment and to say that the reasons should be divulged in writing to the proprietor. Because I agree with him and am prepared to narrow my desires to his narrower wording, I am very pleased to support his Amendment.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have given careful thought to both Amendments, and I realise that there are strong arguments in this case. One of the arguments is that there are cannons to the right of me as well as cannons in front of me. I want to help the Committee as far as possible. At the same time, hon. Members will recollect that last night we heard a lot about setting local authorities and the people free, and I did not want to impose a lot of additional strain and responsibility upon them.
However, I am impressed by the point which has been made, and I am grateful to the Committee for dealing with the matter briefly. I should like to try to meet the Committee so far as I can, because I realise that it would give an applicant the satisfaction of learning the reasons why his application was refused, and it might be that, as a result of learning those reasons, he would be able to resubmit it in an amended form at a later date or at some more appropriate time. If the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) will withdraw the Amendment now, I will give a definite undertaking to do my best to find suitable words by the Report stage.

Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friends, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite, are very grateful for what the Secretary of State


has promised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: If I had moved my own Amendment I should have been happy in the circumstances also to ask leave for its withdrawal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(7) An applicant for assistance under this section who is aggrieved by the decision of a local authority either in respect of a refusal by a local authority to grant assistance or of a decision by a local authority to grant assistance at a rate less than the maximum rate provided in subsection (2) of this section may appeal to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State shall, after consulting the local authority, either confirm the decision of the local authority or direct that the amount to be given under subsection (2) of this section shall be increased by such amount within the limits specified in subsection two of this section as he may determine or that the application shall be approved in whole or in part as the case may be.
I have a feeling that the Secretary of State cannot possibly say "no" to me. I imagine that the principal reason for giving an applicant who is aggrieved by a local authority's decision the grounds, in writing, upon which the authority took the decision is that he will want the information to enable him to do something about it.
When the 1949 Act was discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee hon. Members opposite moved an Amendment with the same purpose as mine. At that time the Government were not sure that it would be a good thing to give the applicant a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. We said at the time that the matter was necessarily experimental, and I wonder whether experience has proved the decision that we then took.
Schemes under the 1949 Act were made in 1950, and I was in office only a very short time after they came into operation. I remember a very bad case, and if there were many of the kind it would warrant an appeal to the Secretary of State as I propose. A co-operative society which had applied for an improvement grant complained that it had been offered 25 per cent. of the cost of the improvements and that every other applicant had got a grant at the maximum rate of 50 per cent. from the authority. I asked the Department of Health to ascertain from the town clerk the reason

why only 25 per cent. was offered. The town clerk replied very briefly saying that he was not obliged to give us the reasons.
At that time I thought that since the Act had been in operation only a short time Ministers had a duty to get to know how it was being administered, and I asked the officers of my Department to communicate that view to the town clerk and ask him if he would kindly tell us why the applicant had received only a 25 per cent. grant. The officers of my Department did so, and the matter was again discussed by the town council.
I got a minute of the meeting and I also got a copy of the local newspaper which reported the meeting, and I found that the only reason why the town council offered a 25 per cent. grant was that the applicant was the Co-operative society, which had not many friends on the town council. Every other applicant, irrespective of his ability to provide or to improve houses at his own cost, was given the 50 per cent. grant.
That seemed to me to be an abuse of the powers given to the local authority under the Act, and I confess that I regretted at that time that the Secretary of State did not have power to consider an appeal from the aggrieved applicant. That was only one instance, and it may be said that one instance does not prove my case absolutely, but it may be that there have been others since. That instance occurred a few months after the Act came into operation, and I have no knowledge of what has been happening since then.
However, as I have said, if an applicant is to get his grounds of refusal in writing he will want to do something more about it, and there will be little point in his writing another letter to the town clerk because the town clerk will politely tell him that the committee took the decision on, say, Tuesday evening last and that the matter cannot be considered again for at least six months. I should have thought that the applicant who gets the ground of refusal will only be happy if he is able to take his grievance to a higher court, and that higher court can only be the Secretary of State. In the circumstances, I hope the Government will be able to accept the Amendment, or, at any rate, its spirit, in the same way as the Secretary of State did the previous Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Member, and I am very sorry about it. I agree that the decision arrived at in the case he has brought to the notice of the Committee was most unfortunate, and I hope there will not be many local authorities or, indeed, any who will act in that way.
The situation here is that the Secretary of State is being asked to act as a court of appeal—to decide on an increased grant when the money has to be paid by the local authority. For many long years now it has been the decision of successive Governments, composed sometimes of hon. Gentlemen opposite and sometimes by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, to stand by the local authorities' right to decide such matters as these. After all, they have the local knowledge and normally they are best able to judge on the merits of the case. It seems unreasonable to require them to increase a grant.
I should have thought it was to be hoped that the words which my right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider will, if adopted, be a deterrent to any local authority acting in the way in which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) described. We want to trust the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has seemingly felt that the trust which the Government of which he was a member reposed in them was misplaced in cases of this nature. We are moving towards the system of providing those whose applications are refused with reasons for the refusal. That is a deterrent, and we hope that the local authorities in the future will act in the spirit of the Bill. It is for that reason we shall continue to trust them, and I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman reconcile what he has just said with the discussion we had last night, where the Secretary of State took powers to ask local authorities to provide schemes. We contested that on the grounds that the local authorities should be left a discretion, but the Secretary of State last night insisted he ought to have the powers to compel them to provide schemes. It seems difficult to reconcile that with the position now taken up, that he has no duty to see that a scheme is

carried out even if it is submitted. Would the Under-Secretary at least give an undertaking that when a scheme is submitted some precaution will be taken to guard against abuse?

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman is raising a somewhat different subject. What we are discussing on this Amendment and what was emphasised by my right hon. Friend last night are two different things. Indeed, it may well have been that had my right hon. Friend not insisted last night on having the powers which he obtained he could not in the last resort have taken any action against a recalcitrant authority.

Mr. T. Fraser: I do not want to continue the discussion unduly, and I do not think it is necessary to have a Division. There are strong arguments in favour of the Amendment, and there are also strong arguments against it. The Secretary of State acts as a court of appeal in many instances. Every week he considers appeals from people who are aggrieved by the decisions of a local authority, and I thought we could have added just a little to his burden. In view of the need to make progress and complete the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move in page 4, line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of an application for assistance in respect of development for which planning permission has been granted under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.
This is continuing with the case of subsection (6), which says that a local authority may in any case refuse to give assistance under the Clause on any grounds which seem to them sufficient. I want to give as an example the case of a local authority which has been required to submit a scheme by the Secretary of State under the powers which we debated last evening. The scheme has been approved by the Secretary of State, the promoters have obtained permission under the 1947 Act, and then the local authority decides that it will turn down the scheme altogether.
The purport of my Amendment is clear, and I do not need to spend a long time elaborating it. Its purpose is clearly to say that where planning permission has been given by a local authority or by the


planning committee of the county council, the county council ought not to turn down the scheme. I do not think it will occur often, but may I say, in passing, that the same thing applies under Sections 100 and 111 of the principal Act?
I have put down Amendments in the form of new Clauses which may or may not be called, but if this Amendment is accepted—as I trust it will be—then I imagine there will need to be consequential Amendments in the same sense. At the moment I am advocating only the case in the somewhat narrow field where planning permission has been given.

Mr. T. Fraser: I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has just told us that planning permission and approval are often asked for from the same authority. That is so in most cases, but not in all cases
Here is one aspect of the matter which I hope the Government are already bearing in mind. Application may be received by the planning authority for permission to build a house on a certain site; there are no objections to that on planning grounds, so the certificate is issued. After that the applicant makes application for assistance under the scheme, and then the local authority will have to take into account those things which the Joint Under-Secretary of State told me a local authority will take into account when he was asking me not to press the Amendment on the subject of the two miles.
I do not want to elaborate the point, but it is quite clear that when a planning committee of a local authority is considering whether or not to give planning permission, the considerations are completely different from the considerations to be taken into account when deciding whether or not a grant shall be made under the scheme. In the circumstances, I hope that this Amendment will be resisted.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Stuart: I cannot accept the Amendment. The arguments which have just been presented to the Committee by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) are correct. This Amendment would remove from the local authority the right to refuse a grant on any grounds. The fact that planning

approval is given should not necessarily involve the local authority in expenditure on a house, because the authority have to be satisfied as to housing requirements.
Another point which makes the Amendment impossible to operate is that, in the case of a small burgh, the county council is the planning authority, whereas the burgh is the housing authority. It would be impossible to have two different authorities, one ordering another to spend money. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that I could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end, to add:
(8) In relation to a house in respect of which assistance has been given under this section, being a house which is for the time being occupied in pursuance of a contract of service by a member of the agricultural population, section one hundred and one of the principal Act shall have effect as if there were included among the conditions specified in that section the following condition, that is to say, that if the contract is determined—

(a) by less than four weeks' notice given by the employer;
(b) by dismissal of the employee without notice; or
(c) by the death of either party;

the employer or his personal representative shall permit the employee (or, in the case of his death, any person residing with him at his death) to continue to occupy the house free of charge from the determination of the contract until the expiration of a period of four weeks, beginning with the date on which the notice is given or, if the contract is determined otherwise than by notice, with the date on which it is determined.
In this subsection "occupied" means occupied otherwise than by a tenant: and "occupy" shall be construed accordingly.
The Amendment is almost identical in form, with the one difference of the period of time mentioned in paragraph (a), to the Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 37, placed on the Order Paper by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Reference was made in the earlier proceedings this afternoon to the rightness or otherwise of the powers which farmers possess in this matter. Representations have been made to us from Scotland on this subject, but I am not aware of any grave feelings about it.
I want to help the Committee to get on with the Bill, and I do not want to stand in the way of the Committee by having


to refuse everything. I have done my best to meet the Committee in certain respects. I do not want to take up a lot of time in moving this Amendment. There may be some discussion upon it, and so my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be prepared to answer questions.
Anybody who studies the two Amendments will see that I accept the principle of a period of notice, but I cannot accept the longer period suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I ask, Sir Charles, whether I am correct in thinking that we can discuss now the Amendments which are on the Paper to the Amendment which I am moving?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): When the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment has been moved, will call the Amendments to it.

Mr. Stuart: Then I will not get out of order by referring to them. The only point on which we have to concentrate our attention is the provision in paragraph (a):
by less than four weeks' notice given by the employer.
I cannot accept a longer period, but will listen to any arguments in its favour. A longer period would make things very difficult for the management of a farm. The Committee will be aware that in Committee on a somewhat similar Bill affecting England there was pressure from hon. Members on this side of the House, supporters of the Government, for a period of four weeks' notice, and that that was agreed to by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I do not want this Committee to think that it is necessary to follow slavishly in those footsteps. I do not regard the notice as necessary for Scotland, where the normal process is for application to be made to the sheriff when a farmer wants possession of a tied house or cottage. Farmers do not attempt to evict without notice.
However, in order that there should be no doubt about the matter and to do the best I can to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite who tabled the Amendment to which I have referred suggesting a period of three months, I have placed this Amendment on the Paper. I hope the Committee will regard it as a reasonable attempt to meet the views that have been expressed. I hope

also that I shall not be accused of taking up a great deal of the time of the Committee in moving this Amendment. I will wait to hear the discussion.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (a), to leave out "four weeks'," and to insert "three months'."
When I opened the discussion on the first Amendment to the Clause, I covered the arguments for preventing arbitrary eviction. I am satisfied of my own knowledge of the industry that in 99 cases out of 100 these provisions will be entirely unnecessary because farmers and farm workers will be able to come to a reasonable arrangement. We are really providing for persons who behave unreasonably, and such cases are unfortunately not those for which we can legislate in any calculated way. They are usually matters of human temperament where friction arises. It is not a question of the efficiency of the farmer or of the farm worker, but very often of a clash of human temperament. It may not arise with the workmen themselves but perhaps with the ladies in the house, or something of that kind.
There are other cases, such as death or the dismissal of a person without notice on unreasonable grounds. To insert "three months'" will not hamper the working of the farm but will be an inducement to people to behave reasonably. It is true that in Scotland the farm worker very often has the protection of the sheriff, but the provision of this term of notice may prevent cases from ever reaching the sheriff. This is like the law which protects shopkeepers against arbitrary eviction and which prevents many cases of hardship from arising, since nobody attempts to do anything of that kind because of the sanction which lies in the background.
We want to counter the power of the arbitrary person used against a helpless employee or his widow. We think it is desirable to put in "three months'," believing that it will not hamper the farmer but will impose reason where unreason has prevailed. I am glad that we are legislating for a very small minority of cases and for something which is the exception rather than the rule.

Mr. Pryde: I want to add my appeal to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) in


asking the Secretary of State to give this matter a great deal more consideration. He has told us that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will reply. Already the hon. Gentleman has told us that he has had his eyes fixed on certificates for some time, which leads us to believe that there is a tendency in Scotland to grant agricultural certificates on a scale much beyond the demand.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in Scotland there is always the recourse to the sheriff court. I want to correct that impression. I know of several cases where there has not been recourse to the sheriff court, and I should like it to be laid down by the House that in Scotland there must be recourse to the sheriff court before any agricultural worker is evicted.
I can cite one instance of an old agricultural worker, one of the most skilful who ever plied the trade in the great county of Midlothian. In a part of the constituency not three miles from my own homestead, I saw a man who had gained a long service medal summarily evicted from his cottage.
That is an indication of what we are trying to prevent in this Amendment, and with the changing conditions I think the Secretary of State will agree that the local authority, whose bounden duty it is to re-house the people of this country, cannot always supply a house at three months' notice. They must have some time to face the housing problems of their area, and I am sure it will be agreed generally that four weeks is too little notice.
On the back page of the "Land Worker," the organ of the agricultural workers of England and Wales, will be seen a long list of evictions month after month. In most cases the sheriff gives agricultural workers time to find both a house and a job. I am sure that I shall have the co-operation of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in this respect, and that together we shall be able to persuade the Secretary of State to introduce three months intend of four weeks.

Mr. Snadden: I had thought that there might have been more discussion on this Amendment, but I shall try not to keep the Committee long, although there are one or two points which should be explained. The Government have put down this Amendment in almost exactly similar

terms to the one put down by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, the only difference being four weeks instead of three months.
The effect of the Government's Amendment would be to make it a condition that if a cottage built under this Clause is tied, grant will be paid only if the occupant has received not less than four weeks' notice of removal or, in the event of his death, any person residing in his cottage at the time of his death. The principal argument that has always been employed, and will probably be raised again when we come to the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill, is that it is wrong to give a grant of public money in respect of a cottage from which the occupant can be summarily evicted. We have put down this Amendment in a sincere attempt to meet that criticism.
6.15 p.m.
Nobody likes eviction. All of us would be glad if in no circumstances whatever were eviction possible, but when we look at the facts, that is not the case. For example, a railway worker, a station master, a policeman or a schoolmaster who sit under what are called service tenancies, as apart from service occupancies, if they lose their job they can be told to remove by a certain date and, if they do not do so, the authority concerned can apply to the sheriff to have them evicted. So it is wrong to say that there are not other kinds of evictions, because there are evictions in all types of tenancies.
In Scotland today, as far as agriculture is concerned, and because of the custom that has grown up in our country, our Crown Office in Edinburgh has been, working over the years to build up a custom in the rural areas that where a person stays on too long the solicitors who are consulted are recommended to advise farmers and others never to put a man out but to go to the court for a court order. That is probably the reason why in Scotland we have had no complaint of hardship or any pressure put upon us on this question and we are informed that, where eviction has taken place, in 99 cases out of 100 it has arisen as a result of an application to the court.
At the same time, the possibility of summary eviction still exists and we have put down this Amendment in an attempt to bridge the gulf between both sides of


the Committee on this question. We are giving legislative effect to what in Scotland has been the practice in 99 cases out of 100. We are putting it upon all owners who take grants under this Measure, whether proprietors, farmers, or owner-occupiers, to observe some decent code of conduct where there is a minority who do not follow the practice of the overwhelming mass of people.
We have given careful consideration to the Amendment to substitute three months. Our objection to it is that it would be quite impracticable and might affect seriously the efficient and harmonious working of our land. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is not in his place at the moment, but he will realise how impracticable this would be, because he was looking after agricultural affairs when he was in the Scottish Office. It seems to me significant that I do not find his name supporting that Amendment. Probably the reason is that he knows enough about the practical part of agriculture not to do so.

Mr. Rankin: That is a wrong deduction.

Mr. Snadden: Perhaps I am wrong, but the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with agricultural affairs and from a practical point of view no doubt he realises that three months would be unworkable.
We can all envisage circumstances where, because of a rather explosive temperament, the employer and worker do not get on well together. We also know of the worker who is not much good and who will leave to get another job a few days after he has been told that he has to go. It would be reasonable to say that if we are to bind the owner to three months, so must we bind the worker. Yet if we were to put it to the union, they would not be prepared to accept that, since many would lose jobs because of the interval being too long. It would have to be a mutual agreement.
We think that three months is too long and would in many cases seriously affect the proper working of a farm, and would adversely affect food production. We have, therefore, chosen the period of four weeks. First, this meets the criticism—one that has some weight, I think—that summary eviction is wrong. We now say

that we will insist that where a grant is given, four weeks' notice must be given and that the other conditions in the Amendment also must be observed. In this way, we feel that we are not running the risk of upsetting the proper working of a farm. I hope that, with this explanation, the Committee will see its way to accept our Amendment and to reject the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McNeil: I do not propose to detain the Committee long, because I have no doubt that several of my hon. Friends who have expert opinions and a wealth of experience on the operation of the Clause will have various reservations to make and criticisms to put forward.
We have not disguised that we have thought it a fairly unsatisfactory Clause. True, it is now a little better than when it was first offered. It is a little better because the right hon. Gentleman has gone part of the way to meet us by the Amendment which we have just carried. It is a little better because, as I understand the Secretary of State, he has given an undertaking that no tied cottage will attract public funds unless it conforms to certain minimum standards, including the provision of hot and cold water and of bathroom and kitchen equipment, and that he will make provision for that in the model scheme which he is to publish should the Bill, unhappily, go through.
Even with these Amendments, however, the Bill falls far short of what we would like to see the Government being willing to do. First, there is the question, which my right hon. Friend debated last night, of the strange whim by which the right hon. Gentleman is taking to himself powers to compel local authorities to make provision for agricultural workers in relation to tied cottages. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a most forceful point last night which the Government cannot laugh off. We have got to a ridiculous position when the Secretary of State here takes powers to deal with the tied cottage for the agricultural worker but


does not take powers to compel provision in the case of the non-tied cottage for agricultural workers.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has so far resisted any pressure to deal with those backward local authorities in the urban areas. There would have been a great deal of relief on this side had he told us that he was going to follow up by addressing himself to the backward local authorities such as, for example, Edinburgh. Now, these backward local authorities will continue unspurred and unprodded by the right hon. Gentleman, but as far as the tied cottage is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman goes out with all the panoply of a great Secretary of State to use his powers perhaps to compel an overburdened local authority to make a scheme on behalf of the farm workers. It is a strange development, and not at all satisfactory.
My second point is that when I withdrew the Amendment in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends relating to standards, which the right hon. Gentleman agrees he will meet by his model scheme, I at the same time removed the Amendment incorporating the proposed subsection (3, c). Under that, we had hoped to go back to the practice laid down in the 1938 Act that public funds would only be available when the tied cottage replaced a dwelling which would no longer be used for human habitation.
It is only fair to say that I want to consult with my hon. Friends and, perhaps, to offer an Amendment upon that point on the Report stage. To us it is a very important point. It is quite wrong that public funds should be available and should so enable a farmer, or anyone else, to continue utilising these dwellings which, by the very definition of the Act, are unfit for human habitation. [Interruption.] I thought that the Joint Under-Secretary—does he wish to speak?—who enjoys the reputation of being a forward-looking farmer, was perhaps blushing for the backwardness of the Clause and was going to volunteer to use—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is certainly not going to brag about it, is he? I thought I heard him say that he was not blushing. I am quite sure that he will not brag about this proposal. He would not brag about it even in his own constituency.
We must earnestly suggest that the Government should think again about

this and not be more backward than their colleagues of four Governments ago. For these reasons, and others which, I have no doubt, will be offered, I feel compelled to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Motion.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to an important matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond): that is, the exact definition of "agricultural population" under the terms of the Bill. Under the terms of the principal Act—the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950—the words "agricultural population" were defined as meaning
persons who are … engaged in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture. …
The word "agriculture" was defined as meaning
the use of land for agricultural or pastoral purposes, or for the purpose of poultry farming or market gardening, or as an orchard or woodlands, or for the purpose of afforestation. …
Under the terms of the scheme of assistance in connection with the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, however, which was allowed to lapse by the late Government in 1945, grants were available in respect of dwellings for occupation by agricultural workers
or by persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers.
6.30 p.m.
I hope that the advantages of this Bill, in the terms of this Clause and, perhaps even more particularly in the terms of Clause 6, will be available not only for agricultural workers in the narrowest sense of the term but to forestry workers, estate foresters and others whose economic conditions are substantially the same as those of agricultural workers and who in any sense of the term are as greatly in need of improved cottages as are farm workers.

Mr. Rankin: I wish to direct my remarks to one specific point. In subsection (2) of this Clause, the Government present the applicant for financial assistance with what appears to be an extraordinary option. He may, on completion of the house, either be given a lump sum not exceeding half the total cost of the house, or, in the case of a three-apartment house, the sum of £240 and, in the case of


a four-apartment house, the sum of £300. There seems to be an extraordinary gap between the two options. He has half the cost of the house, or, in the case of the three-apartment house he has £240.
I do not think it will be disputed that today it is almost impossible to build a three-apartment house for less than £1,300. If I am wrong the Secretary of State will correct me, I hope, when he replies. It seems to me that if the total cost of a three-apartment house is in the region of the sum I have indicated, half the total cost of that sum of £1,300 will be £650. The alternative for a three-apartment house is £650 or £240. That is a gap which I hope the Secretary of State will at least make clear to me, if I am the only hon. Member in the Committee who is in a fog on this issue.
I do not think a four-apartment house could be built for less than £1,700 or £1,800 and, therefore, £900 will be the lump sum which could be applied for, as against the £300 which is offered. That is something which the Secretary of State may feel inclined to say a word upon, if not to clarify the mind of the whole Committee, at least to make the matter clear to me.

Mr. Grimond: I am interested in this Clause as it affects the small owner-occupier, the crofter and the cottar, and not primarily as it affects the landlord of the tied house. I think a great deal can be done in the Highlands and Islands to improve rural housing if crofters, cottars and small farmers are given assistance to get on with their own building. That has certainly proved very satisfactory in my constituency. It provides houses suitable for the conditions of climate and puts them in places where they are wanted, and it means that they are attached to the land.
My criticism of this Clause is, first, that the grants it is to make are quite inadequate at today's prices. If the Secretary of State would increase the grants, he would get cheaper houses and save public money thereby. I know that grants are offered under other Acts and that there are other forms of assistance, but this Measure can assist people to help themselves. Let us see that the help given is adequate.
Under the Measure, the grant must be given in a lump sum on the completion of

the house. The people of whom I am talking are not men of means, but have considerable difficulty in financing the building of a house. I should like to see local authorities free from the obligation only to pay on completion of the house. I should like it to be left to their discretion to make a payment as the work goes on, if they are satisfied that the man is doing the work satisfactorily and that he is a deserving case.
I should like to support what has been said about the importance of interpreting the phrase, "agricultural population" as widely as possible. In my opinion, everyone who lives in the Highlands and Islands area should have a bit of land if possible. That should apply even to the worker on a hydro-electric scheme or the man in a small light industry. I deplore the tendency to divide the countryside into townspeople and country people. Their interests are the same—at least in the Highlands and Islands one cannot draw a distinction. I hope that the Secretary of State will make the phrase applicable to the fisherman and forestry worker. I would go so far as to make it available to the weaver and the man engaged in light industry.
I hope that this Clause, with the powers in other Acts will enable better housing to be given to the people in remote areas. Better housing is most important to these people if they are to be persuaded to stay there. But I hope that the Secretary of State will very carefully examine whether the help given is adequate at today's prices. I hope he will see whether he can raise the grants, and make the conditions more flexible and as widely operative as possible.

Major D. McCallum: The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) who, I am sorry to see, has had to leave the Chamber, said something about my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State blushing because something was or was not in this Clause. If anyone in this Committe ought to blush, it is hon. Members opposite for their performance last night. I have never heard the like of all the fantastic, hypocritical rubbish that was talked here last night.
My right hon. Friend was taken to task for interfering with the powers of local authorities and taking away from them certain powers in regard to housing and


the tied cottage. May I ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite who took away from the local authorities the hospitals, transport, electrical services, gas, and practically stripped the local authorities of all responsibilities except, it may be, for a few things like burial grounds, and so on.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will confine his remarks to the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major McCallum: I am sorry that I digressed, but I am afraid I was tempted to do so by last night's exhibition.
May I ask the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) about a reference he made to having consulted the Scottish Farm Servants' Union on the question of the tied cottage. I am sure he knows, as well as we all know, that the Farm Servants' Union represent exactly 11 per cent. of the farm servants in Scotland and practically none in the Highlands. I am certain that when he was Secretary of State, and went on his journeys in the Highlands and Islands, if he ever asked farm servants in the glens and on the hills in the Islands and Western Highlands they would have told him that the tied cottage was the only system in those sparsely populated areas which could be applied to Highland farming.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), to whom I am sorry to have to refer in his absence, referred to many cases of eviction of which he had heard which had brought about the greatest possible injustice to agricultural workers. I am quite certain that he was not referring to the majority of farms in the Highland areas, and one of the most important men in the Highland areas is the shepherd.
I take it that in the Amendment moved by Members opposite referring to men in charge of livestock, they intended to include shepherds. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton knows full well that it is the custom and tradition in the Highlands for shepherds, if they are leaving, to be given notice to leave at the term and that the "term" is very often six months hence. I know of cases in which shepherds who have themselves been leaving have not troubled to give

anything like that length of notice. To accuse the poor farmer of always being a man who metes out injustice to his agricultural servants is to represent something which is quite untrue.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), for the first time or almost the first time in this debate, introduced the question of the Highlands and Islands, because from all we have heard said, mostly by hon. Members opposite, one would think that one of the most important farming areas in Scotland—the Highlands and Islands—was not concerned with this Bill. In fact the Highlands and Islands are very much concerned.
I wish to point out that the question of confining this Clause to tied cottages only in respect of men in charge of livestock would have created a serious injustice all over the Highlands. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me. I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) returning; he knows quite well that in his own home area in Ardnamurchan there are farms none of the workers on which—tractor drivers or whoever they might be, quite apart from whether they look after livestock or not—could live in the villages of Salen or Strontian and get to his work in time. It is giving, I will not say a whole false, but a half-false picture of the whole position when those vast areas are left out of consideration.
Also the former Labour Government exhorted all those in the Highland areas who could do so to undertake afforestation to build up the forest reserves of the country. To do that meant laying out large areas of woodlands and plantations. Surely it is necessary for foresters to be located where the forests are planted. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the forest is safer if the forester lives in the village far down the glen instead of living near the plantation?

Mr. Woodburn: Might I save the hon. and gallant Member the trouble of arguing a case which is not being discussed so far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned? We have not been discussing the existence or the abolition of the tied cottage but the much narrower point of whether public money should be given for tied cottages.

Major McCallum: The point has been made by some of my hon. Friends that, by giving public money in respect of this type of housing, the Government or the local authority are being saved the expense of putting up these houses, even if they could do so. What Highland local authority could put up individual houses in the various glens? Of course they could not do it.
6.45 p.m.
This is one way in which the Government, in solving this acute housing shortage in the Highland areas, will get the houses, or the local authorities will do so, much cheaper than if they had to undertake their own building at the bottom of the glens.
I am glad that the Government have been able to bring forward the Bill. I sincerely trust that it will soon become law and that the local authorities will give approval, where approval is necessary, for the building of such houses. There was an Amendment by hon. Members opposite about including in the Bill conditions such as the putting of bathrooms, lavatories, etc., in houses for which a grant is given.
Surely no local authority, certainly no Highland authority, would ever dream of giving approval unless the plans included such amenities. Through my duties as a Member of this House, I know that applications have been made to a local authority in numbers of cases, and the sanitary inspector or whoever was the appropriate official has insisted on plans which must be adhered to, and these have contained bathrooms and every other amenity.
As my right hon. Friend said, however, it would be a mistake to lay down the individual amenities to be provided, because in the process of civilisation changes in amenities and additional amenities may be required later. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to introduce this Bill, and I trust that the Committee will accept this Clause

Mr. William Ross: We are now dealing with the provision of housing for agricultural workers. We should bear in mind that, much as we deplore the housing of the people in the cities of Scotland and how bad it is, nothing worse can be found than the slums of the countryside of Scotland.
The 1937 Report on rural housing of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee had this to say:
We are satisfied that in general no section of the population is compelled to live in such consistently bad housing conditions as farm servants.
That was after a hundred years of the tied cottage system. We are being asked by this Clause to extend by public grant that system, which is contrary to the aim of all those who have been progressively concerned with housing for the past 30 years.
We have only to turn to a 1917 Report on Scottish housing, where we find that a Royal Commission on Scottish housing had this to say:
In any event we cannot believe that pubic sentiment will permit of public funds being used to erect houses whose occupation shall be in the complete control of the employer.
More than 30 years ago a Royal Commission in Scotland said that we should not spend public money on the creation of tied houses.
In 1937, the Advisory Committee to which I have already referred, reporting on the conditions of rural workers, said that the same should apply. I am really amazed at the Government coming forward at this time to suggest we should now extend the tied cottage system, in view of the fact that every report between the wars which has dealt with this problem has condemned the system.
The Caithness Committee's Report, in 1936, said:
We are satisfied that under the tied house system it is not possible for the worker to achieve any real independence.
The point is that the Advisory Committee stated, in 1937, and it was accepted subsequently by the Government, that the definite aim of housing policy should be to reduce tied houses to the minimum.
The 1938 Act, which is referred to in this Bill, and which has been constantly referred to in speeches, only permitted the replacement of unfit tied houses by new tied houses. Here we are being asked to increase the number of tied houses, completely contrary to the policy laid down by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee in 1937. I have heard nothing today to justify us in accepting this.
There is one thing which is different in the debate today compared with last night. The hon. and gallant Member for


Argyll (Major McCallum) has been talking about having heard a lot of rubbish last night. I do not know of anything in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons which prevented him from getting up to speak last night. It is rather amazing that last night, when we discussed the plight of local authorities——

The Deputy-Chairman: I called the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) to order on that, because it was no part of the Clause or of the Amendments to it.

Mr. Ross: I thought, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you called him to order for talking about transport and electricity. But the fact is that last night, when we discussed the other Clause dealing with the plight of local authorities and the financial difficulties in which they find themselves, there was not a single word from hon. Members on the benches opposite. Today, when we are dealing with this Clause, when we are granting funds, or suggesting that funds should be granted, to the landlords of Scotland to subsidise tied houses, those who were so ingloriously mute last night have suddenly found voice. I do not think it is any coincidence at all that that should be so.
We have constantly referred to the tied house, but the question is not whether or not there should be tied houses in Scotland, but whether or not public money should be expended in the creation of tied houses. Even the farm workers in Scotland organised in the union so much despised by some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not object to the tied house. If a landlord wants a tied house, there is no power on earth to prevent him from building it. But let him spend his own money to get that power of happiness or misery over a family which does exist, and which was recognised as long ago as 1917 by the Royal Commission. For goodness sake do not come to the House of Commons and ask that we should subsidise an ex-aggregation of an evil recognised so long ago.
There is one other point about which I should like to question the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). On 28th February he made a very interesting speech—we have heard echoes of this speech before—when, in a

moment when he was not quite attending to the political consequence of what he was saying, he told us what was wrong with Britain. He said there was too much loafing going on in this country. He probably remembers that speech; he has been reminded of it before. He had this to say as well:
There are far too many people in this country today receiving help who ought to be capable of helping themselves.
Does that apply to the landowners? Are we to understand that there is no landowner in Scotland who is able to build tied houses for himself or for his own convenience or necessity if he wants to, and that there is no question of a means test for this form of subsidy to the landowners of Scotland? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to be true to the statements he made, he should see to it that expenditure of this public money is carefully scrutinised so as to ensure that the people who can afford to build houses for themselves or for their own convenience or the convenience of their own tenant farmers, are forced to do it.
There is another question which troubles me and which I spoke about last night. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland about it. It is this question of that first phrase we wished to clarify:
A local authority may, and if so required by the Secretary of State shall, submit to the Secretary of State a scheme…
That is in subsection (1) of Clause 3. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the power to compel local authorities to submit schemes to him. Then, in subsection (6), we get this:
A local authority may in any case refuse to give assistance under this section on any grounds which seem to them sufficient.
I wonder what will be the position of a local authority which objects root and branch to this principle of granting ratepayers' money to landowners to build tied cottages. In the one case the Secretary of State says he is going to force them to submit a scheme. What is a scheme? What does it involve? What obligation does it lay on the local authority, the actual submission of a scheme? At the same time the Secretary of State says that a local authority may
refuse to give assistance under this section on any grounds which seem to them sufficient.
I am worried about this, because we had a very revealing phrase from the


Joint Under-Secretary of State in a recent reply. He said, when he turned down our Amendment to delete those words about the insistence on the power of the Secretary of State, that the right hon. Gentleman took that power in order that he would be able—and here are the Under-Secretary's own words—to have the power to take action against recalcitrant local authorities. What does that mean? Irrespective of how little the Secretary of State for Scotland skims over this—non-interference with the local authorities and what-not—his Under-Secretary has said that he is to have power to deal with recalcitrant local authorities. How on earth can we have subsection (6) saying they have the power to refuse when the Under-Secretary has already said that the Minister is going to take action against recalcitrant local authorities?
All the money for this does not come from the Government; 75 per cent. of the grant comes from the Government and the other 25 per cent. from the local authorities. So we have this admission, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is somehow or other going to bring power or influence to bear on local authorities who, sitting in democratic assembly, have come to the decision not to grant assistance—it may well be on the ground that they detest his whole principle—and he is to bring power to bear on them in order to spend ratepayers' money. I think we want an explanation of this business of taking power to deal with recalcitrant authorities.
This Clause is something which is even more dangerous from the point of view of the agricultural community, quite apart from the financial limitations on local authorities today. We have been told, and we shall be told again, that one of the limiting factors on house building is the amount of materials available. The Government have shown us, by putting this particular power for the Secretary of State in Clause 3 and leaving it out of Clause 2—and the words of the Under-Secretary of State also have demonstrated it—how much importance they attach to this building of tied houses, subsidised by Government money, by and on behalf of the landlords.
The more of these houses that are built in any agricultural community, especially in a community where labour is scarce, the fewer will be built for the local

authority. I started by saying that we recognise the evil of the housing position, but the way to get over it to the satisfaction of farm workers and to give them that independence in their own homes which they are now denied by the tied cottage systems, is to ensure that local authorities do their job properly.
Let the Minister go to Ayrshire. I do not know how many people realise that Moscow is in my division. There is a village in my division called Moscow. Even the stream that flows nearby is known as the Red River. Let him go to Moscow, and he will find a small agricultural community, a miniature village, built under a local authority scheme such as could be done under Clause 2. And, as we oppose this Clause, we tell him to use all the powers possible properly to extend building under Clause 2, to the satisfaction of the agricultural population.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has already stated clearly that we shall oppose Clause 3 in the Division Lobbies.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has twitted us on this side of the Committee with not having responded to some of the arguments put forward on the earlier Clauses last night. The fact is that, in the discussion of the earlier Clauses last night, there was no argument that had not been put forward during the Second Reading debate and, therefore, it was quite unnecessary for any of us to rise and answer them.
On this occasion, however, the hon. Gentleman has put forward some arguments that were not used on Second Reading. In his first argument, he said that the more the farmers and local authorities availed themselves of this Clause, the fewer houses would be built for the agricultural population under Clause 2. Surely, after the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman was lost, we are in agreement on the point that there is a necessity, to put it no more than that, for tied cottages, at any rate for Scotland. There are certain people who have to live close to their work, and, if that is so, inevitably, there must be a limit to the number of houses that can be built by local authorities for the agricultural population. I am not at all certain that, to some extent and in


certain areas, that limit has not already been reached.
What has happened? An agricultural worker may get a house, but, sometimes, he may remain an agricultural worker for a very short time indeed, and then goes into another job. Where the rub comes is that, under Clause 2, the subsidies for houses for the agricultural population are higher than those for the rest of the population, so that, in actual fact, what has been happening has been that a subsidy has been given for a certain purpose and that purpose has not been fulfilled. That means, of course, that a fraud on the ratepayers and the taxpayers has been carried out.
Considering that we agree that there is some case for the provision of houses for stockmen and people who must live close to their work, surely we can also agree that these houses should be in keeping with the rest of the housing that is being provided for the population? Why should there not be allowances and grants made in order to make those houses as good as possible for the rest of the population? The only reason against that is the strong prejudice which has existed on the other side of the Committee, which has, to a large extent, stopped the provision of houses for the agricultural population of this country.
This Clause is helping the solution of this problem. It is going to make it possible for new houses to be built. The hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Yes, but why build new houses, instead of houses in replacement of old houses?" In general, over a period, and in spite of the fact that agricultural production has increased, the agricultural population has dropped. The increasing means of production has enabled production to be raised with less manpower, but there are cases in certain parts of the country where it is desirable, and it may be even necessary, to increase the number of houses. Why should we stop that? Why should we make it a necessary condition that for every new house that is built an old house should go out of use?
There is another important consideration that should be borne in mind. It may not be possible in every case for agriculture itself to provide all the houses that are necessary for the farms. There are also pensioners to consider and those

who retire from work. It may not be possible to provide new houses in every case for those who retire, and they may very well go on occupying a house, if it is suitable for continued occupation, without its being replaced by a new house. These are good arguments, but the hon. Gentleman opposite says. "Well, if the case is so strong, why do we need to lay an obligation on the local authorities to provide the house? Will they not do it on their own initiative?"
Surely, there is this answer to that. It is true that housing generally is a local authority responsibility, but agriculture is a national responsibility, and it is in the national interest that we should have the houses which agriculture requires. This Clause will enable the houses to be provided for agriculture where they are needed and for whom they are needed. That is a very great advance, and it is all the greater an advance in that this Clause will enable them to be provided more cheaply by the nation as a whole than would be the case if the houses were built under the provisions of Clause 2.
For all these reasons, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Clause.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: It would appear from the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) that his inference is that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not anxious to see agricultural workers properly housed. That is so far removed from the truth that I find it impossible to sit still and allow it to go unchallenged. Nobody suggests that agricultural workers should not be properly housed.
It was this party which insisted that agricultural workers should have proper houses and be provided with all the amenities which other people enjoy in the towns. The standard of housing in the countryside ought to be no less than that in the towns, and there is no suggestion whatever that houses ought not to be built for agricultural workers. What we are concerned about is that, when we build them now and a grant is given for the purpose of building them, somebody must pay for them and somebody is going to gain something because they are built.
Surely, in the name of common sense, the first important point is that the person for whom the house is built, who may be producing something very important for the country—and I agree that agriculture is very important and that we require an expansion of agricultural production—is going to benefit from it? It is a wrong principle that people who have an earning capacity in the industry should ask other people to pay in order that they may extend the earning capacity of that industry.
Another point which is vital to consideration of this matter is this. How would any hon. Member opposite like to be in the position today of doing a job here in London—even as a Member of Parliament—and, if he lost his seat, being liable to be turned out of his house? That is a very common occurrence. In all good faith, a man may go into one of these houses built by other people's money, and then may have a row with the boss and out he goes. He is rendered homeless immediately. I agree that it is necessary that certain types of agricultural workers must be housed round the farms, but such a man who works on a farm may find that his wife has had a row with the farmer's wife, and, for that reason, may have to lose his house.
The whole principle of the tied cottage is bound to be wrong, and, if houses are to be built adjacent to farms, let them be built as a charge on the industry—not something that everyone else has to pay for and which puts more profits into the pockets of the few and restricts the number of those engaged in agriculture.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Will the hon. Gentleman say how it puts more profits into the pockets of the few? Is he aware of the rent paid for an agricultural tied house compared with the rent paid for an ordinary house?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) said that he rose to his feet because he resented the suggestion made that hon. and right hon. Members in the part of the Committee from which he spoke were not anxious to see agricultural workers properly housed. I would be prepared to agree with him that they are anxious to see the agricultural workers properly housed, but what I find so difficult to understand is why they always take such a

firm stand to see that they do everything possible to make sure that they are not properly housed. There is no question here——

Mr. T. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary is suggesting that we do everything possible to stop agricultural workers from being properly housed. When he comes to speak during the Third Reading debate on Monday, will he make a comparison for us between the number of houses built for agricultural workers in the five years between 1946 and 1951 with any other five-year period in which records have been made?

Commander Galbraith: Although the hon. Gentleman made that gallant effort, on which I congratulate him, he has only really touched the outer fringe of the subject. There is no doubt in my mind that the local authorities simply cannot compete for the provision of houses on farms in these distant and remote places in the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland today.
Reference has constantly been made throughout the last 24 hours to the fact that local authorities are finding the burden already far too heavy for them to bear, and that, in consequence, they may feel that they cannot continue with the housing programme. While telling us that in one breath, hon. Members opposite say in the next that local authorities are capable of building all the houses required by agriculture. One of the statements must be absolute nonsense.
Hon. Members opposite refuse to take any notice whatsoever of the financial implications. They spoke yesterday about the enormous cost of the houses, and certain hon. Gentlemen quoted the figure of £2,600 as the cost of building such houses in remote places. But here we have the opportunity of getting private persons to provide the houses at only a cost to the Exchequer of, in some cases, £240, and £300 in others, and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite turn it down and prefer to place the burden on the taxpayer.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Read the Clause.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman asks me to read the Clause. I would ask him to read it.

Mr. Manuel: Subsection (3).

Commander Galbraith: The point raised by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) was, what is it that is offered here? It is half the cost, or £240, or £300 in the case of the four-apartment house. That is the limit. If half the cost is more than that, they can only get the £240 or £300.

Mr. T. Fraser: We must amend the Bill before Monday because it does not say so.

Commander Galbraith: That is the meaning of the words in the Bill as it is at present.

Mr. Fraser: It is not.

7.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman disputes that, I am willing to take it into consideration and make certain that what I have said is correct.
We have had an enormous number of references to the stranglehold which the farmer has over his workers. I must meet quite different people from those whom hon. Gentlemen opposite meet, and when I am told about the poor farm workers who dare not say a word to their employers, then all I can say is that they are not the workers I meet. Those I meet can say a whole heap to their employers, and they do not hesitate to say it either. There is as much fear of their being turned out of their houses—but there, the argument is just too ridiculous. For people to talk in that way in modern circumstances—and that is the kind of thing that has been coming from the benches opposite today—makes me think that they have never seen a farm or anything to do with a farm in their lives. I admire the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) enormously, but really the kind of sentiment we have had from him today made me feel positively ill.
There is another point I wish to draw to the attention of hon. Members opposite. We constantly hear about the tied house, but the only tied house they wish to get rid of is the agricultural house. There are hundreds of others. What about the railway worker's house, the signalman's house?

Mr. Ross: Stick to the Bill.

Commander Galbraith: I am sticking to the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that one could no more run

the railway system without tied cottages than one could work the agricultural system without them.
The powers which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took yesterday to enable him to make local authorities produce a scheme was referred to by the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). I gave an answer to that when, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman who had been here all the time happened to be absent for just a moment. My right hon. Friend explained most clearly that he hoped the powers he was taking would never have to be used, but that he had to keep them in reserve. The reason for his doing that is simply this. Unless, for instance, my right hon. Friend had these powers, if an authority continued to refuse to implement the provisions of the Bill then the procedure under Section 169 of the 1950 Act could not be brought into operation. For that reason it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to retain these powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) dealt, I thought, very fairly with the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite about replacement. The right hon. Gentleman, who places such great trust in the local authorities, as I am sure he does, accused my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of not blushing. He said he ought to blush. If a house is not fit for human habitation, then surely the local authorities can be trusted to see that a demolition order or a closing order is put into operation so far as that house is concerned?

Mr. McNeil: The same farming interests dominate the council.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that when farmers dominate the council they always act in the best interests of their own workers.
I think I have already dealt in what I had to say earlier on with the point raised by the hon. Member for Tradeston. The whole point is that we as a nation have to get the most out of our land. That is admitted on all hands. There has been a great increase in mechanisation, and it might have been supposed that we should have been able to get along with fewer workers on our farms. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said that there


were, in fact, fewer workers, but he pointed out that there were many farms on good land where, in spite of mechanisation, we still needed more workers. We have to have more houses. If we can get them in this way I think it is to the benefit of all concerned.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) spoke of there being no worse slums than there are in the countryside. That is what we are trying to get rid of. It is the earnest hope of the Government that this Clause will give to the agricultural population modern facilities in their homes and better houses than they have ever had before. That is the reason why we have put the Clause in the Bill, and I trust that now the Committee will see its way to let us have it.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can my hon. and gallant Friend give an answer to a point which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and I raised about the definition of agricultural population and whether foresters and estate workers are included?

Commander Galbraith: I thought it would not be necessary to do that, because I believe the actual definition of agricultural population as given in the original Act was read out in the course of this debate. It does include everyone who is employed, or has recently been employed, in agriculture and every industry that is ancillary to agriculture. It will include all those who are employed on a farm and their dependants. It will include such people as blacksmiths, ditchers, hedgers and drainers and all those who are necessary to keep our agriculture turning. Anyone who is actually ancillary to agriculture is included, as well as forestry.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am most grateful, because the point whether the estate forester who does general work on an estate is included has exercised a great many of us. He often lives in a cottage adjoining those of farm workers, and it has been hoped very much that he was not going to be excluded. I think I can take it from what my hon. and gallant Friend has said that he is included and I am very glad.

Mr. Woodburn: The Joint Under-Secretary in about three minutes has

engendered more heat in the debate than has been produced in two days, and that is saying something in a Scottish debate. I take it that he is not anxious that all the provocations to this side of the Committee should be answered, as I am sure all my hon. Friends are anxious to answer them.
A great deal of feeling has been expressed on the question of tied houses, but nobody on the other side of the Committee seems to have gathered, from all that has been said so definitely from this side, that we are not discussing the abolition or non-abolition of tied houses. The tied house is there and will be there whatever is decided in this debate. Therefore, it is quite beside the point to argue about the merits or demerits of tied cottages. As to what the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) said, there are quite good houses. The difficulty is to get people to occupy them and not to evict people from them in many parts of the Highlands. Therefore, these questions do not arise.
As was stated when we opened the discussion on this Clause, we desire to vote against the principle embodied in the Clause of applying public money to provide more tied houses. That is a principle on which my hon. Friends wish to register a vote. That is not the point which many hon. Members have been discussing, and it has nothing to do with any opposition to the provision of houses for agricultural workers. We provided for them in local authority legislation. If the Joint Under-Secretary thinks that the local authorities have not enough money to provide these houses under existing legislation, he will receive all support from us when he brings in legislation to provide funds for that work.
That is a fair offer. We are ready to support him in providing a proper type of house for agricultural workers. But in the meantime my hon. Friends wish to record their votes against the principle embodied in the Clause of providing public money to build these tied houses.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 124.

Division No. 236.]
AYES
[4.47 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bence, C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Beswick, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Blackburn, F.
Callaghan, L. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Bowden, H. W.
Carmichael, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowles, F. G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Balfour, A.
Brockway, A. F.
Champion, A. J.




Clunie, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan, W.
Ross, William


Crosland, C. A. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Short, E. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McInnes, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Field, W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sparks, J. A.


Forman, J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Steele, T.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Glanville, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Manuel, A. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Messer, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hamilton, W. W.
Morley, R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hannan, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hardy, E. A.
Moyle, A.
Timmons, J.


Hargreaves, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Holman, P.
Pannell, Charles
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hubbard, T. F.
Paton, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Poole, C. C.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pryde, D. J.



Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Janner, B.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson and


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Mr. Royle.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Heald, Sir Lionel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Edward


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baker, P. A. D.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Holland-Martin, C. J


Baldwin, A. E.
Dtedes, W. F.
Holt, A. F.


Barber, Anthony
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Horobin, I. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Beamish, Maj. Tuften
Donner, P. W.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drewe, G.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Birch, Nigel
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hurd, A. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Black, C. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erroll, F. J.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fell, A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kaberry, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bullard, D. G.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bullock, Capt. M.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lambton, Viscount


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Butcher, H. W.
Gower, H. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, H. N.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimond, J.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Channon, H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
McCallum, Major D.


Cole, Norman
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKibbin, A. J.




McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Storey, S.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Powell, J. Enoch
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Markham, Major S. F.
Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Renton, D. L. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Turton, R. H.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Robertson, Sir David
Vane, W. M. F.


Mellor, Sir John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Roper, Sir Harold
Vosper, D. F.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Russell, R. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nicholls, Harmar
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Scott, R. Donald
Wellwood, W.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Shepherd, William
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Oakshott, H. D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wills, G.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Speir, R. M.



Osborne, C.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Partridge, E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Mr. Studholme and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

Division No. 237.]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Nugent, G. R. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Gower, H. R.
Oakshott, H. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D


Baker, P. A. D.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Partridge, E.


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heald, Sir Lionel
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, I. M.
Renton, D. L. M.


Black, C. W.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Robertson, Sir David


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooman-While, R. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Russell, R. S.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hurd, A. R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rechdale)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Scott, R. Donald


Bullard, D. G.
Hutchison, Lt. Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Shepherd, William


Butcher, H. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kaberry, D.
Snadden, W. McN.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cole, Norman
Lambton, Viscount
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Storey, S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Linstead, H. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, H. G.


Crouch, R. F.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCallum, Major D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Donner, P. W.
McKibbin, A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


Drayson, G. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vosper, D. F.


Drewe, G.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Wellwood, W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Markham, Major S. F.
While, Baker (Canterbury)


Fell, A.
Maude, Angus
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Wills, G.


Fisher, Nigel
Mellor, Sir John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)





NOES


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Frasar, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gibson, C. W.
Lewis, Arthur


Balfour, A.
Glanville, James
MacColl, J. E.


Bence, C. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McInnes, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grey, C. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.


Bowden, H. W.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Brockway, A. F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hamilton, W. W
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hargreaves, A.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Carmichael, J.
Hastings, S.
Manuel, A. C.


Champion, A. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Mellish, R. J.


Collick, P. H.
Holman, P.
Mitchison, G. R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Morley, R.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Moyle, A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.


Delargy, H. J.
Janner, B.
Padley, W. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pargiter, G. A


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Keenan, W.
Paton, J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Poole, C. C.


Field, W. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Popplewell, E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kinley, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Follick, M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Proctor, W. T


Forman, J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pryde, D. J.




Rankin, John
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Timmons, J.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Snow, J. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Rhodes, H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Sparks, J. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Steele, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Ross, William
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Royle, C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER SCHEMES OF ASSISTANCE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. Fraser: I should like a Government spokesman to answer a question on Clause 4. The second part of subsection (2) sets out the manner in which the assistance to be given by the Secretary of State to the local authorities will be paid. The wording is quite different from that of the 1938 Act. In other words, the provision contained in the 1938 Act is repealed and the new provision is inserted.
The provision in this subsection, which lays it down that the assistance in the case of the Highlands and Islands shall be seven-eighths and in the rest of the country three-quarters, is exactly the same as the provision in the 1938 Act. In the 1950 Act, which consolidated the 1938 Act, that measure of assistance was to be given in respect of:
… the estimated average annual payments falling to be made by the local authority in respect of the charges on account of loans raised by them for the purposes of payments made under the said section, or which would have fallen to be made if the sums so expended by them had been raised by means of loans.
That is a quotation from Section 104 (2) of the Act of 1950.
Clause 4 (2) of this Bill says:
For the purposes of this subsection the annual loan charges referable to the amount paid by way of assistance shall (whatever may be the manner in which the local authority have provided or intend to provide the money requisite for giving the assistance) be the annual sum which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would fall to be provided by the local authority.
There must be some reason for the change. It seems to me that the Secretary

of State is arming himself with a power which he did not have before. It may be that I am wrong and that he did have that power before and that, although his name was not mentioned in the 1938 Act, it was implied. It may be that he determined the amount of the annual burden for which he gave assistance at that time. I am wondering if the Secretary of State or one of the Under-Secretaries could give the Committee the reason for the change made at this time.

Mr. J. Stuart: The method adopted here is the improvement grant system which operates in the 1949 Act. As I understand it, there is no change from that Act. As the hon. Member knows, its object is to provide Exchequer contributions to assist local authorities to give grants under Clause 3 to private persons building new houses. As far as I am aware, there is no change and the method is the same as that which was enacted in 1949.

Mr. Fraser: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a great pity that he did not pick up some other provisions of the 1949 Act. It will be remembered that when we provided public moneys there, we sought to give some protection to the people occupying the houses by means of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Unfortunately he has not adopted all the provisions of that Act.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(VARIATION OF CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO DWELLING IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN IMPROVEMENT GRANT HAS BEEN MADE.)

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, at the end, to add:
(2) In relation to a dwelling in respect of the provision or improvement of which an improvement grant has been made under section one hundred and eleven of the principal


Act, being a dwelling which is for the time being occupied in pursuance of a contract of service by a member of the agricultural population, section one hundred and fourteen of that Act shall have effect as if there were included among the conditions specified in subsection (1) of that section the following condition, that is to say, that if the contract is determined—

(a) by less than four weeks' notice given by the employer;
(b) by dismissal of the employee without notice; or
(c) by the death of either party;

the employer or his personal representative shall permit the employee (or, in the case of his death, any person residing with him at his death) to continue to occupy the dwelling free of charge from the determination of the contract until the expiration of a period of four weeks, beginning with the date on which the notice is given or, if the contract is determined otherwise than by notice, with the date on which it is determined.
(3) In this section "occupied," means occupied otherwise than by a tenant, and "occupy" and "occupation" (except in relation to occupation by an employer), shall be construed accordingly.
We have already had a discussion on Clause 3, dealing with the Amendment which is now before us, which merely brings this Clause into line with the Amendment with which we have already dealt in Clause 3 and which has been agreed to. I do not suppose that the Committee will wish to cover the same ground again. I must confess that I have nothing of any note or interest to add to what I said in moving the Amendment to Clause 3.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: From the point of view of the part of the country which I represent, this is a very important Clause, because it extends to the improvement of agricultural cottages what used to be done under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1936. The agricultural workers in my part of the world have been awaiting this for a very long time. Indeed, during the Summer Recess it was the one question which I was asked by farmers and farm workers alike—"When shall we get back the grants for the reconditioning of rural workers' cottages"? On behalf of the workers and farmers in my part of the world, I welcome the Clause most warmly and congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having included it in the Bill
There is, however, one difficulty. Section 111 of the 1950 Act applies certain restrictions to the amount of money which can be granted and imposes certain conditions under which a grant can be obtained. Section 111 (4, b) says that no application for an improvement grant can be entertained if the amount of expenditure on the improvement is less than £100 or more than £600. In other words if an application for an improvement to a cottage is to cost £610, then, under the Bill, the application cannot be entertained.
That figure may have been reasonable when the 1950 Act was passed, but the cost of reconditioning and of installing all those things about which the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) spoke earlier—a piped hot water supply, baths, added bedrooms—is today very often far more than £600. Those of us who are interested in this subject are very anxious that steps should be taken to remedy that state of affairs. Under the Act, the limit of the grant is 50 per cent. of £600—£300; that is the maximum which can be obtained.
There are various alternatives by which my right hon. Friend could put this right. He could leave the maximum grant at £300 but amend the Act so that there was no upper limit. In other words, if a farmer wanted to make a good job of a cottage, there should be no upper limit to his expenditure, although the upper limit to the grant would remain at £300. Or my right hon. Friend could take advantage of the proviso to Section III which says, briefly,
.. that where, in a case falling within paragraph (a) of this sub-section, the amount of the expenses estimated to be incurred exceeds six hundred pounds or, as the case may be, the maximum amount for the time being prescribed …
then the Secretary of State, by order——

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman can help us, because some of us find it difficult to see how he relates this argument to Clause 6.

7.45 p.m.

Captain Duncan: Grants are being made under Section 111, and I am dealing with Section 111.

Mr. T. Fraser: We are not discussing the Act; we are discussing the Bill.

Captain Duncan: I agree, but what we are trying to do is to improve the Bill by making arrangements whereby the old Act will work. Under the proviso to which I have referred the Secretary of State has power, by prescription, to alter the upper limit of £600; and that is the second alternative which I offer to the Government—that he should by prescription, using one of the methods of prescribing detailed in the 1950 Act, prescribe a higher figure than £600

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is obviously satisfying his vanity and that of some of his near neighbours and hon. Friends by making a speech about Section 111 of the principal Act. I know that reference is made in Clause 6 to Section 114, but the only purpose of Clause 6 is to revoke provisions which were contained in Section 111. I submit with all humility that it is out of order to discuss the desirability of further legislation to improve Section 111 or any other Section of the 1950 Act.

Captain Duncan: Further to that point of order. If you will refer to Clause 6, Mr. Brown, you will see that it refers, first of all, to Section 114 of the Act. If you look at Section 114, you will see that it depends upon Section 111, which is also mentioned in Clause 6. I submit, therefore, that I am in order in making these remarks, which I now propose to draw to a close by asking the Secretary of State to make a statement about what he intends to do to deal with this real difficulty and, if possible, put it right.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I want for a few moments to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) in his plea that, under powers given by this Clause, the Secretary of State should by legislation raise the limit of £600. My hon. and gallant Friend has said quite truly that costs have so increased since this limit was imposed that there is every justification for raising the amount. There are very many cases in Scotland of two-roomed cottages which require modernisation and where it would be possible to install a bath and scullery within the limit of £600; but to bring them to a satisfactory standard in terms of modern sanitation byelaws and in terms of the wishes which have quite rightly been expressed by hon. Members opposite

during the last few days, would cost somewhere between £800 and £900, and considerably more than that in inaccessible or remote areas.
I want, if I may, to give an example from my own constituency—an example which was brought to my notice only two weeks ago. There were three stone-built cottages, very solidly built in the old Scottish style, but hopelessly old-fashioned and requiring modernisation. It happened that the proprietor in that case could afford only £2,000 for their modernisation. He was quite prepared to spend that amount in modernising these three old cottages.

Mr. McNeil: In that case, had he been willing to spend that sum, would the owner have had a claim against his. Income Tax?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am not dealing with Income Tax; I am dealing with the Clause. But since the right hon. Gentleman has asked that question, I would say that probably the owner might have dealt with the matter under the ten years maintenance claim arrangement, if he had a maintenance claim. But that is not the point. The point I want to make is that here was a proprietor of three stone-built cottages which needed modernisation and who was prepared to spend £2,000 upon them. He obtained an estimate, and the estimate——

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Brown. The only thing Clause 6 does is to tie a house which was untied under the 1949 Act, and I submit that all this discussion is out of order.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Further to that point of order. The Clause varies the conditions applicable to cottages which are the subject of improvement grants, and it is under that that we ask that the conditions be varied. If I may continue with my example, here were three cottages with an estimate of £2,900, which was about £900——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Tom Brown): I am sorry to have to intervene, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to discontinue unless he is prepared to confine his remarks to the matter which is before the Committee.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: With great respect, Mr. Brown, I should not have embarked on this unless I had taken the


best possible advice, and my advice was that it was competent to discuss under the Clause the conditions imposed by Sections 114 and 111 of the principal Act. It is to those conditions that I am directing my remarks, and I hope that that is in order, for I understand it to be so.

The Temporary Chairman: I must again ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Question before the Committee, which is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am confining my remarks entirely to Clause 6 and saying that Clause 6 ought not to stand part of the Bill because it does not go far enough. I am directing the attention of the Committee to ways in which Clause 6 might be properly used by the powers which will be given under the Clause for raising the limit of the grant. I need not develop the point at great length. I merely express the hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to make a statement, now if he is permitted to do so or else at some other time, which will meet the wishes expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend, which I cordially support.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am sorry, Mr. Brown, that I have to rise two or three times to draw your attention to the fact that hon. Members were out of order. I knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite were to make these speeches tonight, because there was a discussion behind closed doors a couple of nights ago when a promise was given that a reply would be made to the speeches which we have just heard if they could be made within the rules of order.

Captain Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Brown. I knew nothing about the discussion two nights ago. I certainly was not present and I heard nothing about it.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Further to that point of order, I was not present and had no knowledge of the discussion.

Mr. T. Fraser: Perhaps it would help hon. Gentlemen if I gave them the number of the Committee Room where the discussion took place.
In the course of an appeal to you, Mr. Brown, I have already stated the sole

purpose of Clause 6. Section 114 of the 1950 Act, taken from the 1949 Act which provided for grants for the improvement of certain houses, provided that any house which was improved by means of a grant under that Act would be occupied by an employee or a tenant but would not be a tied house. Clause 6 says to the owner of such a house, "The important condition attached to your grant has now been removed", and the Government are saying to the tenant, who is protected under the Rent Restriction Act, that the protection which he now enjoys is to be taken from him. This is a monstrous decision, and I sincerely hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby in opposing the Clause.

Mr. J. Stuart: I do not want to get out of order but I read the title of the Clause as:
Variation of conditions applicable to dwelling in respect of which an improvement grant has been made.
I was under the impression—although I was not present at any private meetings which have just been referred to—that this was the appropriate occasion for me to make a brief statement as to the Government's intentions about improvement grants. I hope I shall not be out of order in doing so, because this is a matter which, as my hon. Friends have said, has caused a great deal of disappointment in the past on this side of the House in that these improvement grants were not allowed unless a cottage became untied.
I do not want to go into all the details. We have considered it with great care, and in the interests of restoring to the agricultural population conditions which will be the best that we can achieve and getting houses brought up to modern standards and thereby helping to keep people in agriculture, the Government have decided to restore these grants. The grants were previously taken away from all houses unless they were untied.
With permission, I should like to make a brief statement. Hon. Members will recall that when improvement grants were introduced in 1949 a limit of £600 a house was placed on the cost of work which might, in the normal way of things, be approved for a grant. Applications over £600 a house could be approved only with the express consent of the Secretary of State.
During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill a number of hon. Members represented that, in view of the increases in building costs since 1949, the time had come for the £600 limit to be raised or abolished, and I was urged to exercise my power to make regulations prescribing a higher limit. I received similar representations from a number of bodies in Scotland and, in particular, from the Association of County Councils and the Scottish Landowners' Federation.
The Government have considered those representations very carefully and have come to the conclusion that an increase in the limit is now justified. Accordingly, I propose to lay before Parliament in the next day or two regulations raising the limit from £600 to £800. At the same time the regulations will raise the lower limit, which is designed to discourage trivial applications, from £100 to £150. I feel sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence), my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) and others who have made repeated representations on this subject will welcome this announcement.
The effect of the regulations will be that local authorities will now be in a position to deal with applications for grant for improvements costing between £150 and £800 without reference to the Secretary of State. Applications above the new limit may still be submitted by local authorities for the consent of the Secretary of State, and I shall continue to look sympathetically at any cases where there are special circumstances, such as remoteness, to justify the high cost.
I am satisfied that these alterations in the limits will encourage the wider use of the provisions of the 1950 Act for the improvement of existing houses, particularly in rural areas. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to say that he proposes to make regulations to secure a similar increase in the limits of cost qualifying for improvement grants in England and Wales.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman will not think me at all discourteous, I hope, if I compliment him upon the decision in his "extemporaneous" statement. I am quite willing to accept his assurance and that of hon. Gentlemen opposite that no meeting took place, that no arrangement was made, that no statement was prepared and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) must have dreamt all of it. But the right hon. Gentleman has frequently confessed to the House and to the Committee his diffidence in speaking. He has excelled himself tonight, and I hope he will never go back on the high level which he has established tonight.
I want to suggest that it is a little unusual, to say the least of it, that he should announce a principle in this fashion, and that he should raise the limits of this expenditure on a Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I quite understand that the Secretary of State will have to come to the House with regulations. I am not quite clear in my mind at the moment what power we have in relation to those regulations, but I will satisfy myself on the subject. At any rate it will be completely competent to discuss those regulations then, and with great respect I very much doubt whether it is competent to introduce this extraneous statement at this stage of this Bill.

Dr. H. Morgan: And at this late hour. It is disgraceful.

Mr. McNeil: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan), but the point I am trying to make is that I doubt if it is competent for us to discuss this matter now.

The Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to have moved to report Progress. I did not know how long he was going to be, and I am to blame. I am very sorry.

Mr. McNeil: You can quite understand, Sir Charles, that I was not attempting to reproach you or the Chair in any way. I was suggesting that this was a carefully concealed plot and a discourtesy to the Committee, which I hasten to add is something of which the right hon.


Gentleman is almost never guilty. He is most careful in his dealings with the House and the Committee, and I am sorry that, in my opinion, he has failed tonight in this respect; but the reason is quite plain. This is a miserable device because the Government did not want a discussion of any length. We will see whether we can amend that procedure when the regulations come before the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure the Committee will acquit my right hon. Friend of any discourtesy through taking the opportunity at the earliest moment to acquaint the Committee of an important step which he proposes to take and which will have a bearing on the discussion which we are now having. It will, in fact, shorten discussion, and a Minister is always entitled to take any step which will shorten discussion and which, I venture to suggest, will commend itself to the majority of the Committee

Mr. McInnes: It was clumsy.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have complained bitterly if this had been released to the Press, as it might easily have been, without the opportunity having been taken to make an announcement in Parliament.

Mr. McInnes: It was released last night.

Mr. J. Stuart: It was not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) is really at fault.

Mr. McInnes: I know the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had nothing to do with it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I only know I read the papers, and it was not in any of the papers which I read. Further, I did not take part in any discussion or plan to spring anything, but both I and my hon. Friends were most anxious that the out-of-date limit of £600 should be increased I think that, from all the arguments we have had, it is easy to see that building costs have increased considerably since the limits were laid down, and they have increased the movement——

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order. A few minutes ago, Sir Charles, you ex-pressed regret that you did not ask the Secretary of State to move to report Progress in order that the announcement he made might be in order. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) seems now to be making a contribution which must be just as much out of order on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill as that of the Secretary of State.

The Chairman: I think it would put the proceedings in order if I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland at this stage to move to report Progress and then we could have the discussion.

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I should just like to say that I did not consider that I was doing anything discourteous to the Committee in making the statement which I did. I maintain that if I had merely done this by regulations and then produced the regulations without making any announcement to the Committee, it would have been much more discourteous. I was, of course, pressed for some time to get this limit raised, and this is quite a normal and natural procedure.
No disclosure was made by me to anyone on this side of the Committee, but after the discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government I thought that the right and proper thing—if I did it in the wrong way, I apologise to you, Sir Charles—was to inform the Committee of the Government's decision. There had to be a considered statement which had to be worked out in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and with the Treasury. I think I did the right thing in informing the Committee at the earliest possible moment of the decision of the Government to lay the regulations which have to be laid.

Mr. Woodburn: Mr. Woodburn rose——

The Chairman: Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While I was on my feet when this Motion was moved, I am willing to give way to the right hon.


Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), because I understand this is a new Motion.

The Chairman: This is a new Motion to put the proceedings in order; the debate was out of order on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to speak immediately, I am willing to give way, though I merely want to say that I welcome the Motion which has been made. It certainly enables our discussion to be a little wider than it would have been under the narrower limits of the original Motion. I contend that I was in order in what I was saying, because it was a subject which my hon. Friends and I were about to raise in the debates on this Bill. The mere fact that the Secretary of State has given advance notice that the regulations will be laid and will come before the House will tend to shorten the debate, because we shall have a full opporunity later of considering the whole question, and no doubt these regulations will be prayed against if necessary.
In the meantime, I only want to say that the increase in building costs has made the previous limit of £600 quite irrelevant to the building position today, and it was most anomalous that if the figure of £600 was exceeded by even £5 it thereby took the whole transaction out of the provisions which Parliament made in the past for the better housing of the agricultural population. It is a good thing that this limit should be raised.
I do not think that the rise from £600 to £800 corresponds at all with the rise in building costs which has taken place since the £600 limit was originally laid down. It would have been of considerable advantage if the limit had been made even higher. Be that as it may, half a loaf is better than no bread, and this modest step taken by the Secretary of State will not throw the matter out of gear, taking into account the other provisions we are making.
I was also interested, incidentally, in the fact that we have reversed the usual practice, and that an important announcement concerning England was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. On more than one occasion we have had important statements concerning Scotland

made by the responsible Minister in England. The fact that both sides of the Border are keeping in step and that the limit which was out of date has been brought up to date seems to me to be something on which this Committee should congratulate itself. We certainly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government on having arrived at this eminently sensible proposal.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made three points, to which I shall try to address myself shortly. He thinks that the increased limit is appropriate, and he has given the Committee some very interesting information. He has told the Committee in effect that building costs have gone up 33⅓ per cent. since Her Majesty's Government took office.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Since 1949, since the limits were laid down.

Mr. McNeil: My recollection is that at the termination of the last Government there had been no application made by any representative Scottish body upon this subject. I am speaking from recollection. If I am wrong perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me of one. He says that we need to raise this limit by 33⅓ per cent.
My second point is not that there is no necessity to raise this limit. That case must be agreed. There seems to be some confusion in the mind of the Government. If a burglar comes in and takes away £600, we do not expect the Government to take credit for making £800 available to the burglar the next time. We say that this introduction at this time means that greater assistance will be available to people with dwellings which were untied and now immediately revert to being tied dwellings. That is a point which the Government do not seem to understand.
As to the third point, I would be the last person to accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland of designed discourtesy. Every quarter of the House would admit that he is a most courteous and considerate Minister of the Crown, yet he takes a curious course, in bringing this announcement to a Committee of the House. There would have been no difficulty in his employing the normal usages of the


House of Commons by making an announcement after Questions, with the permission of the Chair, or by arranging with one of his hon. Friends to put down an approved Question. That is perfectly legitimate. Wherever the meeting took place, we feel that there undoubtedly was an agreed plan. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I am in a slightly difficult position because, by an accident, I know more than I might otherwise know about this matter, and I do not intend to tell the Committee.
Are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to sit solemnly shaking their heads and expecting the Committee to believe that in this strange place and in response to three strange speeches the Secretary of State gets up by accident and reads out a carefully prepared statement? I would never accuse the Secretary of State of such behaviour. It is his hon. Friends behind him with whom I am trying to get on nodding terms with the truth in this situation. Because it has been taken in this way we feel it is unusual and wrong, and we shall take such steps to give further consideration to this subject as we can and to decide what we shall do about it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Normally I do not intervene in debates upon Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: Why not?

Mr. Ede: Because you, Sir Charles, once dropped a hint to me from the Chair as to my appropriate position on a Scottish day; but this is no longer a Scottish day. This is indeed becoming a United Kingdom night. An announcement has been made not merely on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to Scottish housing. The Secretary of State has assured us that he has had consultations with the Minister of Housing for England and Wales, and he makes a pronouncement on behalf of that Minister too.

Mr. Rankin: Where is he?

Mr. Ede: There is not a Minister associated with the Ministry of Housing here. We did have a fleeting visit from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. I do not know whether he had some pre-knowledge of what was going to happen. At any rate when he saw that trouble was blowing up

he discreetly left. Having known the hon. Gentleman for a good many years I congratulate him on continuing the course he has always taken when trouble looks like blowing up.
As I understand the position, the Secretary of State proposes to submit a statutory instrument to the House of Commons dealing with the issue that has been raised. I assume there will have to be a separate, similar instrument for England and Wales, I gather that the right hon. Gentleman assents to that?

Mr. J. Stuart: Yes.

Mr. Ede: Therefore, probably it is as well that we postpone anything we have to say on the merits of the matter until we get the statutory instrument before us.
In view of the way in which this matter has been raised, we ought to press that it shall be brought before the House at a time when it can be fully and adequately discussed and when everybody will have an ample opportunity of knowing what is going to happen. One could comment on the fact that the Secretary of State evidently knew that this statement was going to be asked for, that he came here well prepared, and that the Civil Service English of the document he read to us was so perfect that it was clear that it was not something which was vamped up since the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) got on his feet and surprised us all by trying to prove what has now been demonstrated was not the fact, namely, that his speech on Clause 6 was in order.
The whole discussion has arisen in such a way as to make people on this side of the Committee feel that this has been an attempt to get a pronouncement made in the way in which it would attract the minimum of attention. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) upon the speedy action he took to ensure that the irregularity of the proceedings should be made clear. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friends will divide the Committee as a protest against this way of bringing English business before the Committee on an occasion when it is generally understood that the presence of English Members is not regarded as being very useful.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That I do report Progress"——

Mr. Leslie Hale: Surely we ought to have a reply from the Government to the very important speech which my right hon. Friend has made. I do not wish to intervene. I have taken no part in the debate but, like every Member for a British constituency, I am very concerned about this matter of housing costs. It is fantastic that when the overwhelming number of Members are at dinner, or are in the Library considering the very important matter that we have to discuss tonight, an announce-of this kind should be made, almost sub rosa, and that we should have to wait and read our papers tomorrow for this extraordinary announcement about the hopeless lack of control in the industry and the chaotic condition that prices have reached under a Tory Government.
I am surprised that the Minister should smile at that. I used to think that housing costs were expensive under a Labour Government when I compared them with pre-war figures. We thought the time was coming when prices would go down, but this sudden suggestion that prices have increased to this extent will invalidate almost every vital figure in the Budget proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
When one takes into account that this increase in prices is subject to increased interest rates that the Government have imposed arbitrarily, it is clear that the whole housing policy of the Government is put in jeopardy by this announcement. And the ground for the increase is that the costs of the industry have increased. I understand that in my absence the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) confirmed that from his own figures——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It would have been much better if the hon. Member had listened to what I said before commenting on it.

Mr. Hale: Of course it would have been better had I listened to what the Minister said, but the Minister did not have the normal courtesy to tell us that he was going to say it. The announcement was not made at the normal time. It was out of order. It did not arise on Clause 6. It was a mere question of obiter dicta. In that way an important Ministerial statement was made to an almost empty House only a few minutes

ago. That is the reason, Sir Charles, why you have been asked to accept this Motion, and I am happy to think it may be voted upon.
Let us face the situation. We are confronted with the duty tonight of discussing later on a Bill which may involve the whole question of our relations with the friendly Republic of Eire and on which clearly there must be full discussion. We have another Committee stage before us involving not merely our relations and agreements with Finland but our future agreements with other States. It is at this time, with all that before us, that we are confronted with an intervention in a Scottish debate from which we Sassenachs as a matter of courtesy normally abstain.
I am bound to say, with the greatest deference and respect and amity towards my Scottish friends, that if it means that every English Member has to sit through every Scottish debate in future, it seems to me to be putting a rather heavy burden upon us, although no doubt it will result in some educational and oratorical——

Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the prospect alarms Scottish Members considerably. If right hon. Gentlemen are to make announcements about England in this Committee, think of our terror if English Ministers make announcements on behalf of Scotland in an English Committee.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure he will symphasise with me when I say that if one contemplates the possibility of Scottish announcements being made early on a Monday or late on a Friday, it will introduce a new principle into our debates which may be a very serious matter.
It is not good enough for Her Majesty's Government to be represented here by three or four or five people, most of whom, with great respect, have no Ministerial relations with this subject, and for them to ask us to accept this announcement without protest. I should have thought that out of reasonable courtesy to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) there should be some answer and some elaboration of detail. It is only because of the absence of that answer that I have ventured to intervene for these few seconds.
If there is to be no answer I sincerely hope that my hon. Friends will continue this discussion until there is, because it is the duty of the House of Commons to see that we receive that respect from the Government Front Bench to which we are entitled, even if they are not able to give us adequate information or adequate explanation.

Mr. Ross: Quite apart from what I prefer to consider as the accidental discourtesy of the Government Front Bench in timing this announcement as they have, I think there is a serious question of governmental sharp practice arising here. Surely it is no accident that on this very Bill yesterday we were discussing the financial basis and calculations relating to the increase of the subsidies for housing. We were told then that the increased subsidies were related to the rise in the interest rates.
We are told tonight that this increase from £600 to £800 for improvement grants is related entirely to the rising costs of building. That shows quite openly how fantastically wrong are the calculations relating to subsidies. If there has been a 33⅓ per cent. rise in the actual costs of housing, why did the Joint Under-Secretary of State not meet the requests of the local authorities for increases in subsidies relating to those rises in costs?
I am perfectly sure that when we discussed this yesterday and put these very points that the Secretary of State for Scotland knew this announcement was to be made. I sincerely hope we shall vote on this.

Mr. J. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I made the announcement on what I believed to be the appropriate Clause of the Bill. As to the other points, I hope the Committee will be satisfied with what I explained before, that regulations will be laid regarding this increase in grants both as affecting England and Scotland. In view of that, I hope the Committee will permit me to ask leave to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I am sorry I missed the original statement. May I ask one question? Have there been any discussions with the local authority associations on this matter, because normally that is what takes place

and I have heard of no discussion with the English local authorities.

Mr. Stuart: I said originally that various representations had been made to the Government with regard to the desire for an increase.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I wish to add my protest to the procedure that has been adopted in this respect on an important financial commitment of the Government in relation to the repair of agricultural cottages. It is obvious from what has been stated by the Minister that there has been some collusion between the Government Front Bench and back benches to arrange to make this statement at this stage in the discussion of this Clause of the Bill. The statement has no fundamental relationship to this Bill as such. It would have had to be made as a pronouncement of Government policy even if this Bill had not been here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you want to vote on this?"] We will have the vote on this very soon. I am just putting in my word of vehement objection to the procedure that has been adopted.
8.30 p.m.
The Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed and disgusted with themselves in adopting this procedure instead of being frank and honest enough to follow the accepted line of procedure when making important pronouncements of this kind on financial policy. After all, as has been said, it is not merely a question of Scottish agricultural cottages. The statement and its effects will apply to the whole of the financial arrangements throughout England and Wales as well as Scotland. In my opinion, these statements should have been made on behalf of the Government by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, followed by a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Scotland.
I rest content at this stage with registering my strong protest at the amateur way in which this matter has been dealt with. There is wide scope for a large part of the present occupants of the Government Front Bench to attend night-school instruction in local government administration.

The Chairman: Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?

Mr. McNeil: Without protracting the debate, I think it better, in view of this unusual happening, that we should at any rate record our impatience and displeasure with this highly unusual but plainly calculated happening by voting.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 141.

Division No. 238.]
AYES
[8.31 p.m.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rankin, John


Balfour, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bence, C. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, F.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A


Bowden, H. W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. F.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
King, Dr. H. M
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Kinley, J.
Ross, William


Carmichael, J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, C.


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Clunie, J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Short, E. W.


Collick, P. H.
Lewis, Arthur
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McInnes, J.
Snow, J. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Field, W. J.
Manuel, A. C
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Viant, S. P.


Glanville, James
Morley, R.
Watkins, T. E.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hamilton, W. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Hannan, W.
Paton, J.
Yates, V. F.


Hargreaves, A.
Poole, C. C.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Hastings, S.
Popplewell, E.



Hayman, F. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Holland-Martin, C. J


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Deedes, W. F.
Horobin, I. M.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Baker, P. A. D.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Drewe, G.
Hurd, A. R.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Hutchison, Lt.-Com, Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Birch, Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Black, C. W.
Fell, A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. H.
Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Linstead, H. N.


Bullard, D. G.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Llyod
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Butcher, H. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gower, H. R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McCallum, Major D.


Cole, Norman
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McKibbin, A. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Markham, Major S. F.




Maude, Angus
Remnant, Hon. P.
Studholme, H. G.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Renton, R. L. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Mellor, Sir John
Robertson, Sir David
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Turner, H. F. L.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Russell, R. S.
Turton, R. H.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Oakshott, H. D.
Scott, R. Donald
Wakefield Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shepherd, William
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Osborne, C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wellwood, W.


Partridge, E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wills, G.


Powell, J. Enoch
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Storey, S.



Raikes, H. V.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Redmayne, M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. John MacLeod: I rise only to say that, in view of the announcement of the Secretary of State, we on this side of the Committee are now prepared to support the Government on this Clause.

Mr. Ross: The original Act of 1949, to which the right hon. Gentleman's announcement referred, applies to all houses throughout Scotland. This Clause applies only to agricultural houses. There are many local authorities through-

out Scotland who have never taken advantage of the power under the original Act. Will it be open to a local authority to take advantage of that power and apply it only to agricultural houses, or must they apply it to all the houses within their area?

Mr. J. Stuart: I think I am right in saying that it applies to all houses which qualify for improvement grants, but will correct that if I am wrong.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 115.

Division No. 239.]
AYES
[8.42 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fell, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Finlay, Graeme
McCallum, Major D.


Baker, P. A. D.
Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Baldock, Ll.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Barber, Anthony
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Birch, Nigel
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Markham, Major S. F.


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
Maude, Angus


Black, C. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Mellor, Sir John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bullard, D. G.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Oakshott, H. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D


Butcher, H. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Osborne, C.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Partridge, E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cole, Norman
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Pilkington, Capt. R A


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.
Hurd, A. R.
Raikes, H. V.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Remnant, Hon. P


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton Foster, H. B. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robertson, Sir David


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Donner, P. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Scott, R. Donald


Drewe, G.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, William


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)




Snadden, W. McN.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wellwood, W.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turner, H. F. L.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Storey, S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wills, G.


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Vosper, D. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Sutcliffe, H.
Ward, Mist I. (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry.




NOES


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rankin, John


Bacon, Mils Alice
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Balfour, A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H


Bence, C. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blackburn, F.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowdon, H. W
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brockway, A. F.
King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Kinley, J.
Ross, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, C.


Carmichael, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Short, E. W.


Clunie, J.
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Collick, P. H.
MacColl, J. E
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McInnes, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McLeavy, F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sparks, J. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Field, W. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B W.
Timmons, J.


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Glanville, James
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moyle, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E)


Grey, C. F.
Oswald, T
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W E
Wilkins, W. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paton, J
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hargreaves, A.
Poole, C. C
Yates, V. F.


Hastings, S.
Popplewell, E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hayman, F. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)



Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. Hannan.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Clause 7.—(INCREASE OF MINIMUM PAYMENTS INTO HOUSING REPAIRS ACCOUNT.)

Mr. Manuel: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, to leave out "eight," and to insert "six."

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took the two proposed Amendments to this Clause together.

Mr. Manuel: I should be very pleased to take together with the Amendment I have moved the second Amendment, in line 43, at the end, to add:
in respect of each new house, building or dwelling completed after the twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.

I think that will suit the purpose of the Committee in discussing the position of the repairs fund in Scotland under the powers of the local authorities. The purpose of these two Amendments is, briefly, to leave the £4 as at present indicated in Clause 7; and that the proposed £8 shall be £6, and that the £6 should apply only from 28th February of this year.
We have heard a great deal from the other side of the Committee about how wrong it is to infringe too much on the powers of the local authorities, and we concur in that opinion. Indeed, we attempted to retain in an earlier Clause powers for the local authorities which the Secretary of State insisted he wished to take unto himself. Local authorities in Scotland, in the main, have not allowed themselves to be placed in a position such that the Secretary of State could


feel that their financial position regarding the repairs fund was such the he would have to force them to make greater contributions from the rates, because the £4 indicated here is a minimum figure which they have to put into their housing repairs fund on behalf of each dwelling in the local authority area each year.
Of course, the position has necessitated many local authorities throughout Scotland having to increase it, but that does not mean that very many local authorities in Scotland have had to increase it to the extent of the £8 indicated here. In fact, very few have done so, and I have the figure here if the Joint Under-Secretary would like to have it.
I think it is right to leave it to the local authorities themselves to decide how much they ought to increase the allocation per house to their local repairs fund, and, in order to meet the position arising under Clause 7, we are prepared to say that on the dearer houses, owing to higher building costs, such as have been illustrated during the debate, we will agree that there should be an increase of £2; in other words, £6 per house should be placed to the repairs fund as from 28th February this year. All the local authority houses built previously, going right back to the 1919 Act, ought to be left at the former figure of a minimum of £4, and the local authorities themselves ought to be left to increase that to whatever figure they think fit.
There is unanimity among the main Scottish local authorities on this question. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who is secretary of the Scottish Labour Group, and who is not now in his place, although he has been here all day, has asked me to indicate to the Committee that he has received a telegram from the secretary of the Association of County Councils in Scotland. The telegram reads as follows:
Association of County Councils in Scotland, at a meeting today, in light of high rates which the affiliated county councils have found necessary to fix to cover inter alia housing deficits, desires strongly to renew its previous representations that subsidy provisions in Housing (Scotland) Bill are entirely inadequate to ensure continued provision of houses, and is alarmed lest the inadequacy of the subsidies will lead to a substantial curtailment of housing programme. Association further desires to renew its objections to compulsory contributions of £8 per house to repairs account, particularly as applying to houses completed before 28th February, 1952.—George Davie, Secretary.

I know that in certain areas, local authorities have had difficulties, but, so far as my information goes, those local authorities have faced these difficulties and have increased the amount from £4 to the necessary figure above that sum when the repairs account looked like showing a deficit at the end of the financial year. The local authority to which I had the honour to belong for 15 years increased, during my period as Treasurer, the amount to £6. That, of course, has helped the position today.
The rising cost of materials has naturally necessitated this, but I and my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the Committee want to leave this matter to the local authorities themselves. We do not see why we must put in £8 whether it is necessary or not. I know that there is a provision that, on appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman may allow them to pay such sum between £4 and £8 as he thinks fit. I do not think that is necessary, and I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who I understand is to reply to consider what we on this side seriously put forward, that the amount should only be £6 from 28th February this year, and that in the case of houses built previously, right back to 1919, the figure should be left at £4 as indicated in the Act.

Mr. Pryde: I would remind the Joint Under-Secretary of State of the warning I previously gave to the Government, and I think he will agree with me that every stage of this discussion brings out in bold relief everything I said about this Bill. I am certain that, after having heard the contents of the telegram which was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that the great Association of County Councils in Scotland are with me in this matter.
I challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to name one local authority which has said that it requires £8 per house to be added for repairs. Is it not perfectly true to say that everything spent on repairs must come out of the housing revenue account? The simple addition of £2 to make it £6 or the addition of £4 to make it £8 does not end the matter, because there is something to be paid besides that. Owners' rates


have to be paid. Therefore, the Joint Under-Secretary of State must agree that the whole financial basis of this Bill is absolutely wrong as applied to present-day conditions. The Government Front Bench have already admitted that building costs have risen from £600 to £800 on a £600 outlay. What is going to be added on a £1,635 outlay?

9.0 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I think it would be as well if I were, first of all, to place on record the source from which this figure came. The figure of £8 was that given to us by the Scottish local authority associations themselves as the average cost of repairs when we were considering the new subsidy into which the amount of repairs enters. It was for that reason that that figure was included.
The hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) started by saying it was wrong to infringe too much upon the powers of the local authorities. After all, hon. Members opposite have protested in some cases and have been asking us to do that repeatedly this afternoon in other cases. But I would remind the Committee that the Government have some responsibility here. There is a good deal of taxpayers' money invested in these local authority houses, and it is our duty to see that the investment is protected. The hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central went on to refer to the fact that there was no need for this increase. I only wish I could agree with him, because I have with me a record of what has been happening to repair funds.
Before I come to that, I should like to point out to the Committee that in the days before the war when, of course, £4 applied, it was considered that a local authority should have £20 per house in the repairs fund. It was thought that that was a reasonable limit to have, and that meant a period of five years. I should like the Committee to listen to what has happened over the last three years.
Taking the average of the four cities, in 1949 a sum of £8 14s. 10d. per house was in the repairs fund. The amount was reduced to £8 4s. 2d. in the following year and is now £7 12s. 0d. In the large burghs the sum was £3 18s. 0d. in 1949, £2 10s. 7d. in 1950 and £1 16s. 0d. in 1951. In the small burghs it has fallen

from £8 6s. 0d. in 1949 to £5 0s. 2d. In the counties it has fallen from £3 9s. 9d. in 1949 to £1 8s. 0d.
That is a rather alarming situation. In fact, there is not sufficient being put in the repairs fund. I can remember, as can all hon. Members, constant reference being made by the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) to the fact that private owners were very much to blame because they did not create reserve funds to meet repairs as their buildings became older. Here is the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central inviting me to follow that course.
It seems to me perfectly ridiculous to suggest that the new houses should have to provide £8 and the old houses should not provide that sum. After all, the older the house the more repair it needs, yet the suggestion is that less should be put into the repairs fund for the old house and more should be put in for the new house. I cannot understand that argument at all.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman seized of the point that the newer houses to which he refers will have the increased subsidy provisions and the older houses will have a much smaller subsidy, so that actually there is more in comparison between the two types of houses than the £8 limit.

Commander Galbraith: That seems to me to be beside the point. We are trying to keep houses in repair. The local authority associations say that £8 is necessary, and now it is suggested that the older houses, which will require more repair, should be provided with a smaller sum. No one on earth would think it was right not to create a repairs fund against deterioration in plant, fixtures, machinery and buildings and so on, and we are asking the Committee to allow us to take a prudent course here.
We know full well the pressure put on local authorities by ratepayers which might incline them not to do this, and the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central has given evidence just now of this pressure in view of the high rates. We all regret the level of the rates, but that should not be a reason for neglecting the dwellings of citizens. It is for that reason that I must insist that these Amendments should be rejected.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, as usual, very sound in actuarial practice when he is expounding a case acceptable to himself. I have no doubt that he will apply the same skill—I know that he can—in looking at the case on the other side. I suggest that it is a little unfair to pick out the £8 calculation of the local authorities when they were trying to show the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his basis for the calculation of the subsidy was too low.
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had accepted the entire local authority case, I assure him that I would be accepting his view now and not pressing him to reconsider the matter. Everyone knows that if things were completely fluid, the course which he advocates would undoubtedly be the wisest one; but we are discussing the position of local authorities who are very hard pressed—who are perplexed as to what their next rating steps

should be, and baffled about the new burdens which the increased price of money has thrown upon them. In that situation they are pleading that they should be allowed to make the best accommodation that they possibly can.

The local authorities are not going to be any more careless than the Government about the condition of the houses. The local authorities are certainly much more likely than the Government to hear the protests of the tenants if such are justified. We are asking Her Majesty's Government, since they have imposed a very hard bargain upon the local authorities, to permit them to make the best accommodation they can in relation to their repairs fund.

Question put, "That 'eight' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 109.

Division No. 240.]
AYES
[9.7 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Oakshott, H. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gower, H. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Baker, P. A. D.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Partridge, E.


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heald, Sir Lionel
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Powell, J. Enoch


Birch, Nigel
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Raikes, H. V.


Black, C. W.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Redmayne, M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horobin, I. M.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Renton, D. L. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Robertson, Sir David


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Bullard, D. G.
Hurd, A. R.
Russell, R. S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Scott, R. Donald


Cary, Sir Robert
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shepherd, William


Clark, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Cole, Norman
Kaberry, D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Snadden, W. McN.


Cranbarne, Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Storey, S.


Crouch, R. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Longden, Gilbert (Harts, S. W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Dodds, N. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McCallum, Major D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
McKibbin, A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fell, A.
Markham, Major S. F.
Wellwood, W.


Finlay, Graeme
Maude, Angus
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr.- S. L. C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Mellor, Sir John
Wills, G.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.



Garner-Evans, E. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.




NOES


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hubbard, T. F.
Rhodes, H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hudson, James (Eating, N.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Balfour, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bence, C. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blackburn, F.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William


Brockway, A. F.
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, O.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Carmichael, J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Champion, A. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clunie, J.
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Collick, P. H.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Snow, J. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McLeavy, F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Steele, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Field, W. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Timmons, J.


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Glanville, James
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Oswald, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Grey, C. F.
Padley, W. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paget, R. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paton, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Poole, C. C.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Popplewell, E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Yates, V. F.


Hargreaves, A.
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hastings, S.
Pryde, D. J.



Hayman, F. H.
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. Hannan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(AMENDMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE MAKING OF CERTAIN ORDERS.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 16, to leave out from "be," to "exercisable."
The purpose of the Amendment is to ask the meaning of:
… deemed always to have been, exercisable …
Does it mean that this requirement was omitted from an earlier Act? I move the Amendment to find out why the words were inserted.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) is correct in what he has suggested. The object of inserting the words is to correct omissions made in previous legislation. During the passage of the 1946 Act, a question was raised in relation to the same words by an hon. Member who now sits on this side of the Committee, and the then Secretary of State explained, just as I am

now explaining, that it was merely the normal course for bringing old legislation with omissions into line with the procedure which now operates.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, at the end, to add:
(3) Any Statutory Instrument made in the exercise of the foregoing powers shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of resolution of either House of Parliament.
The purpose of the Amendment is plain and I need not bore the Committee. I want to be told, first, why the Government have chosen to do this by means of a Statutory Instrument, and then I want much more to be assured that, since there are apparently extensive subjects which can be affected by Statutory Instruments, such as, I imagine, standards, the Government will agree to find a form of words which will give the House of Commons some control. To prove my reasonableness, I do not even ask for an affirmation; I merely ask that, if the Government are persuaded that they must


proceed by means of a Statutory Instrument, a form of words will be found to enable us to pray against regulations dealing with important subjects.

Commander Galbraith: The purpose of the Clause is to bring the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act into operation in relation to certain matters which it has previously been decided need not be subject to the annulment procedure, and to enable them to be published. If we bring them within that scope, publication takes place automatically. The whole purpose is to enable the regulations to be better known than they are now. The House has already agreed that regulations of this kind need not be laid and that the annulment procedure need not apply.

Mr. Woodburn: May I take it that the Conservative Party have completely reversed the attitude they held when they were in opposition? In those days they insisted that everything must be submitted to the House for annulment and pressed us on all occasions that the House of Commons should keep control over all these Instruments.

Commander Galbraith: The House has agreed that that is not necessary. All we want to do is to be able to publish the regulations.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 7, line 33, to leave out "dwelling," and to insert:
house, dwelling, building or other land.
This Amendment is moved because of an oversight. Previously this provision was in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act and the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, which is reenacted in Sections 103 and 104 of the 1950 Act, but by an oversight it was omitted from Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1949. We have been advised that the words as they stand at present would not cover the case of an applicant who wished to make some improvements or additions to his dwelling, and it was therefore considered necessary

to insert these words, to which I hope the Committee will be prepared to agree.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out subsection (5).
The purpose of this Amendment is to seek information. In this case the local authority is substituted for the Secretary of State, and the power is now to be exercised by the local authority instead of the Secretary of State. We should like to have some information as to why this substitution has taken place.

Commander Galbraith: The object here is to enable the local authority to approve of the reconstruction of a house instead of having to go to the Secretary of State for permission to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) may remember that he gave an undertaking to the local authorities to that effect, and we are merely implementing the undertaking which he then gave.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Woodburn: I am not opposing this Clause, but I should like to know, Sir Charles, whether you are going to call any of the new Clauses.

The Chairman: It is not proposed to call any of the new Clauses. Either they are not in order or they have not been selected.

Mr. Woodburn: May I say what a tragedy that is for many people in Scotland?

The Chairman: If the new Clauses are not in order, nothing can be done about it, I am afraid.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Orders of the Day — IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill deals with the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust, which was created in Ireland in 1924 by United Kingdom Act of Parliament in order to provide homes for ex-Service men of the 1914–18 War. The object of the Bill is to give the Trust power of sale to the widows of ex-Service men. It also confirms the powers which are believed to exist to sell to ex-Service men. If the Bill is passed, the result will be that the Trust will have the power to sell houses which have been built by the Trust to ex-Service men and to their widows.
In Southern Ireland, owing to a decision of the Irish courts, there is no power to charge rents. The Trust has to maintain the cottages and houses out of its own cash reserves, and as those reserves dwindle the point will be reached when the Trust will be unable to keep the cottages in repair. The Trust is anxious to create a purchase scheme in Southern Ireland by which the houses will be offered at less than market price to the ex-Service tenants or to their widows. The money obtained will be used to build other houses for ex-Service men who are beneficiaries under the Trust. There is still a considerable list of ex-Service men who would like to enjoy the benefit of these houses.
In Northern Ireland the houses are let at a low rent which just covers the cost of maintenance, and there will be no purchase scheme there unless responsible Service opinion desires that one should be put into operation. The provisions under which the Trust lets houses to widows will continue. At the moment the figures are that in Eire 623 houses are let to widows and in Northern Ireland 269.
The Bill is not controversial. It is brought forward to ensure that the beneficiaries of the Trust in Southern Ireland will continue to enjoy benefits under the Trust and to provide a way in which they can secure the benefit of these cottages

or houses for their families. It will be appreciated that unless ex-Service men or their widows buy the house the family will not be entitled to it, and that the house will go on to some other ex-Service man who might be on the list. In Northern Ireland the Trust gets in enough money to maintain the houses, and it is not the intention of the Trust to bring in a purchase scheme unless ex-Service men there wish that to happen. Lettings there will continue both to ex-Service men and to widows at low rents just sufficient to cover maintenance.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: My hon. Friends and I welcome this Bill. We may have some points to raise in Committee to improve it, but we shall certainly do all we can to give it a Second Reading.
As I understand it, the problem of these 2,700 houses in the Irish Republic which have been let to ex-Service men of the 1914–1918 War and their widows is, as the hon. Gentleman said, the problem of getting any money to maintain them since rents cannot be collected according to an Irish court decision. Obviously this cannot go on for ever, and if the Government of Eire, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Northern Ireland are all agreed that the Trust should be given powers to sell and to build, then it is right that we should look at that carefully, and it seems to me that the case has been made out for this Bill.
There is one important point, and that is the price at which these houses will be sold. I was going to ask for an assurance that they will be sold really cheaply. The hon. Gentleman said that they will be sold at less than market price. I do not think it is possible to press for more than that because that is an important concession, but quite rightly so. These veterans of the 1914–1918 War in Southern Ireland are men who served us well, and previous Parliaments set out to help them for so doing.
It is difficult to get figures as to service from Southern Ireland in that war because the Irish figures were taken as one at that time. I see hon. Members for Northern Ireland here, and I think we all agree that, taking Ireland as a whole, the proportion of volunteers from a country which had no conscription and no


immediate danger of invasion itself were remarkably high. The only figures I have seen on this were the British Legion figures, and they were outstanding.
I should not leave this Bill without referring shortly to the Irish service record in the last war, especially as I see here the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. We all know the magnificent record of Northern Ireland. It is more difficult to know the record of Southern Ireland because a neutral country does not keep official figures. However, we know of the great numbers who served and are serving today in the British Forces.
We know the instance of the senator from the South who was serving in the British Army and who returned from time to time to Dublin leaving his uniform at the Border, who made speeches in the neutral House and then came back. On one of those visits he was told that his villa in Italy had been taken over by the Italian Government and that Kesselring was living in it. He was so moved with indignation that he sat down and wrote on the notepaper of the Irish Senate a sharp letter of protest to the Embassy in Rome protesting at the monstrous act of the Italian Government in seizing the home of a senator of a neutral country. As a result, Kesselring left.
We welcome this Bill and hope it will receive a Second Reading.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Alan McKibbin: At the beginning of this week I attended by request a meeting of the North of Ireland British Legion and the members present were disturbed by reason of the fact that the British Legion had not been consulted about this Bill. They were much concerned about the widows of the ex-Service occupants when those occupants died, and also about certain other matters which I need not go into.
It gave me much satisfaction to hear the statement of the Minister, from which I understand that there will be no scheme for purchasing the 1,362 houses in Northern Ireland, although there has always been power to sell them to ex-Service men, that no scheme will be introduced without all the interested

parties being consulted, and that the widows will be admitted as tenants after the deaths of their husbands. I am glad that the Minister has given these assurances, which should satisfy the Northern Ireland ex-Service community, as they have always looked upon these cottages as a pool for ex-Service preference.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely, the hon. Member has raised a point of tremendous importance. Is it really true that the Bill is being brought before the House without the recognised organisation of the ex-Service men having been consulted or even informed? Can the Minister tell us?

Mr. McKibbin: They were consulted in England, but apparently they were not consulted in Northern Ireland.
For a number of years it has been assumed that when the turn of the 1914–18 men had been served, these houses would become the ultimate inheritance of the men of the 1939–45 war. It is conceded that the houses were built for the 1914 men, but one must take the common sense view that if there had been any reason to anticipate another world war these conditions would have been slightly different.
But for the fact that there is a considerable waiting list of 1914–18 men for these houses, there would undoubtedly have been considerable agitation long before now to have the tenancies open for the 1939–45 men. I feel certain that at a later stage when there are no more 1914–18 men available, the Trust will preserve the rights of the 1939–45 men who are now on the waiting list and that it will not allow the houses to pass into any other hands than those of ex-Service men.
There has never been any wish on the part of the ex-Service men in the North to sabotage the interests of their comrades in the South. There has always been the best of feeling between the ex-Service men on both sides of the Border, and I am quite sure that this will always continue. A few years ago I went as a guest to a re-union dinner of ex-Service men in Dublin, and on that occasion I heard them sing "God Save the King" with an enthusiasm that almost blew off the roof.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Although I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has said from the Front Bench, it seems that we shall want a lot of information about the Bill before we come to the Committee stage. I want to protest in opening at the very little information that was given from the Government Front Bench in this debate or, indeed, in another place when the Second Reading was taken there, and at the very little information we have now and the wholly inadequate accounts that are filed in the Library by the Trust.
The noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords said, if my recollection is right, that probably very few people knew that the Trust existed. I imagine that that is true. Very few people would know anything about it by going into the Library and trying to find the information that is available there.
We are told in a footnote that the rents derived from the houses in Northern Ireland are of the order of £28,000 a year for 1,300 houses, or, roughly speaking, something of the order of 8s. or 9s. a week, which seems a reasonable and modest rent. And we are told offhand by the hon. and learned Gentleman that a decision of the Irish courts has deprived the Trust of the right to receive the rents from the houses in Southern Ireland. As I understand the position, it is said that no power to receive rents was ever inserted in the original Bill and that it was due entirely to a mistake in the Bill that they were able to come to that conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln said, very rightly, that this cannot go on for ever. But it has already gone on for 19 years, and if the relative rents are of the same order in Southern Ireland, there is an income of something like £60,000 a year that has been lost to the Trust for 19 years without, so far as we are able so see, anyone doing anything at all about it, or indeed, as far as I know, the matter being formally reported to this House or any suggestion being made about the introduction of legislation.
The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Second Reading said that

what is wanted is first to have the right to sell houses to widows. He said further that they want the right confirmed—they think they have it—to sell to ex-Service men. I should have thought that in 19 years that could have been found out by the simple process of selling one or two. If I read the accounts aright, some have been sold. It may be that that is in Northern Ireland.
So we have the position that for 19 years the Trust has carried on owning 2,700 houses in Southern Ireland and never drawn any rent from them. That is a principle of which, substantially speaking, I am in favour. I think that all rents should be abolished, but if I developed my views on that, I should probably get outside the direct terms of the Second Reading.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made no attempt to explain the situation or to inform the House of what has been done to change it. What he has not said is that under this Bill it is intended to go on letting houses to widows at all. As I understand it, unless the husband has died before the Bill is passed, or six months thereafter, it is not proposed to let houses to widows of those men. That is the first fundamental point, that there could be nothing more contrary to the intentions of a benevolent trust than to say that we are not going on letting to widows of ex-Service men because we do not think they will be able to pay and we may lose money on them.
The fundamental proposal is very remarkable, and I hope the House will consider it seriously between now and the Committee stage. They say, "We cannot draw rents and are not going to seek power to draw rents, nor to ask for powers to dispose of all this property, preferably to ex-Service men and preferably at a reasonable price." It is well at this stage to consider just what has been the mechanics of the administration of this Trust because, drawing no rent, the noble Marquis in another place said, maintenance has been kept at a minimum. One can understand that one would not be over-lavish with maintenance, but I ask the House to consider for a moment precisely what are the relevant figures. I have the figures on revenue account for the year ending 31st March, 1950, from the Library. I understand these are the latest figures available. The House may be surprised to know what they are.
In Northern Ireland, on 1,300 houses £16,416 has been spent on maintenance, and in Southern Ireland on 2,700 houses only £1,387 has been spent. On 2,700 houses, if I am right in my figures, the amount has been approximately 10s 0d. per house per year, and the House might be interested to know about this anonymous Trust. The names of the members are not given on the memorandum, although under the Bill there are to be appointed by the appropriate Minister, one from Southern Ireland and one from Northern Ireland.
The House might be interested to know the administration of these houses in Southern Ireland on which virtually nothing has been spent on maintenance, on which no one collects rents, and there is no commission on rent to pay. But they spent £7,833 9s. 1d. in one year in Southern Ireland alone on administration. They also spent, at their headquarters in Southern Ireland, another £923. So we get the Trust spending £8,600 in administration in Southern Ireland and £1,387 on maintenance of houses.
That seems to me to be a quite appalling situation. What is the state of these homes? The House has a right to know this. What is the sort of price that is to be obtained for these houses? If they had no maintenance done on them in the 19 years which have passed, what is their state? Could we see a photograph of them, or be told what is their approximate valuation?
In another place it was said that they are going to sell these houses and build more houses and sell them. They are going to try to provide for the ex-Service men of Southern Ireland by treating the capital derived from the sale of these houses as capital available for further investment, and are going to build more houses and sell them. Is that correct? Is that really the intention. If so, at what price can houses be built in Southern Ireland at this moment? I happen to know something of house building prices in Dublin, and I suggest that the figures are higher than those here for comparable houses. They normally build smaller houses than we do, so that the price per capita is lower but for comparable houses the price is higher.
In this situation, it is suggested that these houses be sold at modest prices.
No one will pay much if they are living rent free. What is an ex-soldier living rent free likely to pay to extinguish his non-liability to pay rent? Then it is intended to use the money to build houses elsewhere at present prices. As one noble Lord said in another place, how many people will there be in Southern Ireland today of the type whom it is intended to benefit by this provision who will be able to pay, or who can in any way provide, a sum which will meet the extraordinarily high building costs of today?
I like to be courteous to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is himself always courteous, but I think it is surprising that he has not opened up a little on this. It is unfortunate that he and I should be called upon to start the discussion on this Measure at this unearthly hour of the evening. The fault for that is not mine, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made representations to the Leader of the House. I am also perfectly certain that his representations have been received in much the same way as any representations which we make from time to time as to the ordinary conduct of the business of the House.
Some remarkable things were said in the course of the debate in another place. One noble Lord said that we wanted to make provision for the soldiers of the 1939–45 war but they must wait until we have dealt with all the soldiers of the 1914–18 war. Why?
In this country we initiated a system, which unfortunately has been abrogated to some extent by the present Government, of allocating houses on the basis of need. Those who served in the 1939–45 war are likely to be people who are married, with young families, and most in need of housing accommodation. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should treat with anything other than the fullest consideration those who served in the first war and for whose needs the Act was primarily intended. At that time we did not contemplate having another war.
There is, however, no reason why there should be this disparity of treatment and why it should be said that no man may have a house under the provisions of this Trust until after those who, irrespective of need, made application following the 1914–18 war. I do not think that can be the case

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: There is apparently a waiting list of ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war who are waiting to avail themselves of an opportunity to occupy or acquire a house already built under the terms of the Trust.

Mr. Hale: I do not doubt that for a moment but I fail to see its relevance. There would also be a waiting list, if one were opened, of people who took part in the 1939–45 war and who were in difficulty. I am suggesting that consideration should be given to individual need and that houses should be allocated to those who need them most.
That is impracticable within the terms of the Bill because it is proposed to sell and not to let the property. I am dealing primarily now with Southern Ireland. I am not raising any objection to the proposals for Northern Ireland, which seem to me to be perfectly reasonable. In Southern Ireland, however, it is going to be a question not of need but of purse, and it seems to me that after the first sales which this Bill authorises the financial difficulties will greatly increase.
In view of the £8,600 spent on administration in Southern Ireland, and the fact that they have £25,000 on deposit, £100,000 invested and several thousand pounds on current account at the bank, it is a little surprising that the Trust have not done a little more about it. They might have experimented, come to this House and said, "This is what we propose to do. These are what the costs are, and these are the investigations we have made to see if we can do it."
I mentioned one matter quite casually, and I wish to emphasise it a little. Why are there to be no new widow tenants? What is to be the position? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman really considered this point? What is to be the position of the widow of a soldier of the 1914–18 war who dies more than six months after the passing of this Measure? If we cannot get rent from her, how can she be evicted? Under what powers and provisions and on what grounds? It is difficult to think of grounds to make an application for possession to let to somebody else from whom we should not be able to get rent either. What is the position of such a widow who, if I read the Bill rightly, does not come within its provision?
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has considered this, but I think the House ought to be informed of it. What is the ultimate intention? How is the Trust really to operate in Southern Ireland. If we are to sell the houses we have and build more and sell those, how long do we go on building? What losses are we prepared to incur? What subsidies are we prepared to give to the Trust? We have had a savage announcement today in a previous debate about the cost of houses. We are told that, chiefly under this Government and certainly in the last two and a half years, the cost of housing has gone up by something like 33⅓ per cent. I submit that there can be no doubt that if that be so here, it is very likely to be so in Southern Ireland, and therefore there will have to be a question of subsidy if it is hoped to realise those houses.
I frankly cannot see the point of this Trust going into the building industry and building houses and selling them, with the intention of building more houses and selling them, unless they can produce some figures to show that it can be done to the public benefit and with advantage. On what terms are sales to be made? The first proposition, and the only proposition contained in the Bill, is that we shall realise one by one 2,700 houses that are now built, some hundreds of which were built by the Local Government Board before the Trust existed, way back in 1919, 1920 and 1921. If they have not been maintained at all for 19 years, it is questionable what amount is likely to be realised.
Is it proposed to sell only to the tenants, to sell each house individually to a tenant? I hope so, but I cannot find from the wording of the Bill that there is any limitation on the power to sell them in bulk if required. I may be wrong about that. It is not easy to master three or four Bills each day in the way we are now called upon to master them. I suggest that that is a matter on which the hon. and learned Gentleman should take the House into his confidence.
There is a further point, and it is a serious point. When we come to discuss this matter in Committee, we shall have to consider whether this Trust is properly constituted and administered. I have on occasions paid very great tribute to the care and assiduity with which the


Comptroller and Auditor General audits many accounts debated here, but these accounts are hopelessly inadequate. As I understand it, the position is that a large number of houses were built-I think 600—by the Local Government Board under the Act of 1919, under the powers then given. After the passing of the Irish Free State Bill the Consequential Provisions Bill of 1922 was passed, under Section 3 of which this Trust was set up. There was to be made available under the provisions of that Measure £1½ million, a very large sum in those days before we had an inflationary Chancellor of the Exchequer such as we have had in this last 12 months.
I think I am right in saying that £1,300,000 was paid and made available to the Trust. But there is no capital account at all. There is nothing to show what has been lost in the capital account; nothing in the accounts to show what these houses are estimated to be worth or to show what would result from the sale under these conditions. There is no reference to their condition during the last 19 years, or what has been done about it.
I can well understand that in these circumstances the members of the Trust prefer to remain in anonymity. We have this Bill put forward without even the names of the members of the Trust being presented to the House. Surely, this is a quite appalling situation on the Second Reading stage of a Bill which is not merely of interest to this House but will need some corresponding legislation in the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, as I understand it.
I hope I am right in this conclusion, but frankly I do not see how we shall get over the legal difficulties which we failed to get over in July, 1933. The hon. and learned Gentleman indeed gave expression to some doubts of mine. He said, "We rather think that we have the power to sell in Southern Ireland, but we are not absolutely certain, and this Bill will put it right." Of course, it will not. It may put it right in the Chancery Division here, but this is a matter of property, and in a foreign country, and we are still subject to legislation which is passed there. Therefore, as I apprehend it, there will have to be legislation in all three Houses, so that this becomes an important matter.
Even if it is getting on for 10 o'clock at night, I think it is an appalling state of affairs that we should be asked to pass a Bill without any information at all, without any relevant documents, without a White Paper and without any information being available to show what the houses are worth or what they are likely to realise, and without the Minister having given to the House any of the relevant information when he opened the debate.
I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will try to give it in reply to the debate. I only ask him to consider quite seriously the three or four points I have made. What will be realised, and what will he do with the money? How does he propose to sell, and will he sell to tenants only or to people who do not even occupy the houses? This is a little disquieting. I have not seen in this Bill any provision which permits the hon. and learned Gentleman to charge anything in rent.

Mr. Foster: Mr. Foster indicated assent.

Mr. Hale: I gather that I am right. and I am fortified in that by——

Mr. Foster: They can be let, but no rent can be charged.

Mr. Hale: They can be occupied rent-free. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this question of administrative costs. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how, if one owns 2,700 houses, if one is spending only £1,700 a year on them, and one is collecting no rents, one can do anything about them except perhaps take a photograph once a year to show that they are still there, and sign the insurance policy? Where, then, does this amount of £8,600 of administrative costs come from? It is not the same in Northern Ireland, because there they have the job of collecting rents and they have to pay commission, and they do repairs.
These really are matters to which I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will direct his attention, and I hope we shall have some satisfactory answers to the points I have ventured to raise.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am afraid I cannot join my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) in approving this Bill on Second Reading


on the information at present before us, because the scheme which is put up is fantastic in its nature.
Here we have got some 2,600 houses, which are let at no rent, they have not been maintained for 19 years and it is proposed to sell them to the people who are the least likely to give any substantial figure for them; that is to say, the occupant himself, who has merely got to pay for the privilege of living there rent free, which he is already doing, or his widow. That is the sort of people who are benefiting here, and the probability is that the widow would have very little.
What sort of price—and I really feel the House is entitled to know this—do the Government imagine they are going to realise for these houses in this sort of market and in these sort of circumstances? Then, presumably, they are going to build new houses with which to repeat this performance. How many of these old houses does the Minister think this Trust will have to sell in order to build a new one? Is it 10, 20, 30 or 50?

Mr. Hale: Five or six.

Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend says five or six; I should have thought it would be nearer 50 or 60. What is the figure? Are we not entitled to know? Has anybody any idea as to how this scheme is going to work and what sort of money will be realised, or is the scheme that these houses are not going to be offered to the tenant or to the widow, but are going to be sold to somebody who happens to be an ex-Service man and who, having bought them, will not be under the disability of this Trust and will be able to charge rent, and any rent he likes?
If that is the scheme, I can imagine that something might be got for the houses, but certainly the whole purpose of the Trust would be utterly destroyed. Is that the scheme? I hope the Minister will tell us because, as far as I can see, it would be within the powers which we are asked to confer on this trust.
Again, on whose advice is this scheme—which on the face of it appears to be fantastic—being put forward? We have heard that the British Legion, which is the generally recognised organisation of ex-Service men, have not been consulted.

Who has been consulted? Has anybody other than these trustees been consulted because, quite frankly, on their record we are not very impressed by their advice.
Here are people who for 19 years have been satisfied to sit back and allow their property to deteriorate while maintaining their administration expenses at over £8,000 a year, and who then come forward with this scheme. If they are the only people who have been consulted, then I think the Minister must agree that their record as we know it is not such as vastly to impress us with their abilities. All we can see of them is the shockingly inadequate accounts which they put forward of their stewardship, accounts which this House would not accept for one moment from anybody responsible to it.
Again, I do not entirely understand why the power to sell is confined to the widow. What happens if it is an elderly sister who has been keeping house for the ex-Service man, if it is a daughter who, perhaps, has not married in order to look after her father, or if it is all sorts of other members of the family who have just as much right to be protected as far as their home is concerned and who have just as much right to benefit by this Trust? Why is it limited simply to the widow?
Finally, what does the Bill do? We do not know. We are told that a decision of the Irish courts decided that this Trust had not the power to charge rents for the houses which they let. Can we give them power or cannot we? Has this House the right or has it not to enlarge the power of this Trust in a manner which will be recognised by the Irish courts?
If the answer is "yes," then why in the world not give this Trust the power to operate in the manner in which they were obviously intended to operate and in which they operate in Northern Ireland? Give them the right to charge rents for these houses and make this extraordinary scheme unnecessary. If the answer is "No," and we have not the power in this House to give this Irish Trust rights which they did not have before to deal with this property, what effect has this Bill? How can we give them that power to sell, and to sell to widows?
I find it extraordinarily difficult to see why, if we can enlarge the power of these


trustees at all, we cannot enlarge them by giving the Trust power to take rent. If we have not the power to enlarge the rights of these trustees, what is this Bill doing at all? These seem to me to be questions to which we require answers. I do not feel that we should give this Bill a Second Reading until somebody has gone back and done a bit of thinking and somebody is in a position to answer these questions.

10.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I should like to make one brief point, because I happen to have a very old friend of mine who is directly concerned in this matter. He is an Irish ex-Service man of the 1914–18 War, and some considerable time ago he wrote to me to find out whether anything was likely to be done to regularise what we must all agree is a highly peculiar situation.
The House will be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for the researches he has made into this obscure and complicated business. This ex-Service friend of mine tells me that one-third or approximately 600 of the men who fought in the 1914–8 War and were tenants are now dead and their wives and children are just hanging on. These people want to be in a position to hand these houses to widows or children legally and not at the whim or on the authority of any particular body or individual.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that it has been stated in another place that the maintenance of these properties has been kept at a minimum. According to my informant the position seems to be that representatives of the Trust in Dublin have for long carried out no repairs. In the case about which my informant writes, no repairs had been caried out at all for the past five years. When it is announced in another place that the maintenance has been kept at a minimum I think it is probably an accurate statement of fact, because it could not be less than nothing, which was the amount spent on repairs for the past five years. It is perhaps difficult to understand why, after referring to the fact that the Trust representatives in Dublin carried out no repairs for the past five years, my friend goes on to say:

I may add, personally, I always found them gentlemen and they gave me every consideration.
If I may respectfully say so, that is a truly Hibernian interpretation of the situation.
I am also informed that the Trust of one estate—I think it is Lord Harlech's—built five cottages for these 1914–18 ex-Service men and that there are now only two remaining in their possession. The Trust sold some of those cottages or houses to other people. It may be an explanation of the extraordinary level of expenditure to which my hon. Friend referred that one of the duties of the Trust appears to be the carrying out of evictions from time to time.
According to my information—which I have no reason to doubt—the Trust has evicted the sons and daughters of tenants from houses in which they were born. My informant tells me that the last place in which such a thing happened was at Longford. These people are very concerned about the situation. They want to know what is going to be their future.
Some of the previous speakers have been wondering what these houses are worth. My friend informs me that they are worth £1,500 each at present. In his letter he says:
… people are greedy and would like to shove us out on any old pretext, but they will have a job.
I do not think that we can disregard or treat lightly this kind of thing, and that is why I very earnestly support the request made by some of my hon. Friends for a little more information on this matter.
The information that I have has been culled only from the correspondence I have had with the particular friend to whom I have referred. Had it not been for that I, like most other hon. Members, would have known little or nothing about what is involved in this Bill. I do hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this Bill has taken the trouble to arm himself with a little more information. I would point out that some of us will consider it our duty, on the Committee stage, to subject this Bill to an even closer and more detailed scrutiny than either the time or the rules of procedure permit us to do at the present moment

10.14 p.m.

Mr. J. Foster: I am sorry to have noticed the unwonted division between the hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman requires the leave of the House to speak a second time.

Mr. Foster: If I may have the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the questions which have been asked of me. I regret the unwonted division between hon. Members opposite, one of whom is supporting the Second Reading and one opposing it.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order. I did not hear the hon. and learned Gentleman either ask for or obtain the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker: When I drew the attention of the hon. and learned Member to the omission he instantly asked for, and, by my Ruling, obtained the leave of the House to speak a second time.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. I did not hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and I do not think anybody else did; and if we refused him leave, having regard to the way he began, then he had no subsequent opportunity of requesting it.

Mr. Speaker: I heard him myself, and that is enough.

Mr. Foster: There is again a curious division. On the one hand we have the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who want me to give the information, and on the other hand the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who apparently does not.

Mr. Paget: Surely the point is that we desire the information but also desire the ordinary courtesies.

Mr. Foster: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that I did not ask the leave of the House? He knows perfectly well that I did—and he heard me. Let him get up and say he did not. Perhaps I may get back to the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]—from which I was diverted by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering.

Mr. James Hudson: The hon. and learned Gentleman should not have permitted himself to be diverted.

Mr. Foster: The purpose of the Bill is to carry out the object of the Trust, which is to help the ex-Service men in Southern Ireland——

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Of the 1914–18 War.

Mr. Foster: Yes, of the 1914–18 War. As I told the House, the decision of the Southern Irish courts was that no rent could be paid or collected.

Mr. Hale: Why?

Mr. Foster: They decided that the Trust had no power to charge rent; that was their decision. The courts in Northern Ireland decided the opposite. Since the decision in 1933 there has been no power to collect rent in Southern Ireland, and the Trust have had to maintain the cottages out of their cash reserves. Clearly, if that situation continued, in the end the Trust would be without any cash reserves and unable to carry out even the minimum maintenance which they do in Southern Ireland.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton asked why we had not included in the Bill a power to charge rent. He will appreciate that whatever we do must be with the agreement of the Government of Eire. What the Government of Eire want is that we should not charge rent. The history before the decision of 1933 was that there were a number of tenant strikes; they objected to paying rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some hon. Members appear to agree with them.
What the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is asking, therefore, is that we should put a provision in the Bill which the Government of Southern Ireland do not want and which the ex-Service men do not want. I think that is a sufficient answer to him, showing why we did not include such a provision. In a Trust which is set up by the law of one country—the United Kingdom—which operates in one country which is not part of the Commonwealth—Eire—and in another which is another jurisdiction—Northern Ireland—it is necessary to get the agreement of all three Governments.

Mr. Paget: Can the Minister tell us when the Government of Eire were asked, in what terms they were asked,


and what they replied; and when he says that the ex-Service men do not want it, can he tell us who spoke on their behalf?

Mr. Foster: I am pointing out that there were a number of tenant strikes against rent, which certainly shows that they do not want rent. The negotiations among the three Governments have been going on for a very long time. The position is clear; it would be unwise and wrong for the House to insert a provision to charge rent in Southern Ireland. The reason why nothing has been done in recent years is, I assume, that there would be no way of getting rent collected in Southern Ireland and that it would have been wrong for this country to override the decision of the Southern Ireland courts and the wishes of the tenants.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton asked who had been consulted. The British Legion in Southern Ireland has expressed its agreement with the Bill. So has the British Legion in the United Kingdom, and we understood that the British Legion in Northern Ireland had also agreed, because two of the trustees are members of the British Legion in Northern Ireland and they would be in touch with their members. Whether that be so or not, the statement which I made is entirely satisfactory to the points raised by the British Legion in Northern Ireland, so there is not much substance in that point. The Bill as it stands is agreeable to the ex-Service men's associations, and I consider that that justifies the bringing forward of this Bill to allow the Trust to promote a scheme for Southern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West asked questions about the price of the houses and how many houses the Trust anticipated building. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) was anxious that the prices charged should not be too high, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West was inclined to think that we should not get anything at all for the houses. On the other hand, the friends of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) seemed to think that the houses would fetch a considerable sum if sold at a market price and there seemed to be people waiting for houses who would have paid higher prices for them. We have to reconcile these varying points of view.

Mr. Hale: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the position. He was asked specifically whether it is the intention to sell these houses to a person, who can technically qualify as having served in the war, as a landlord, who would then be able to charge a rent. Clearly, the question about the value will depend on whether the houses are to be sold as houses occupied by tenants who can continue to live rent free, whether they are to be sold to the tenant or whether they are to be sold in any way, and that is where these considerations come in.

Mr. Foster: Obviously, but I was saying that a number of contradictory points have been made by several hon. Members. I was proposing to deal in a minute with the question raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The answer to his point is that the Trust intends to sell the houses to the tenants. If no tenants are available to buy the houses, the Trust would have to dispose of them elsewhere. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, that is why in a group of cottages only two ex-Service men are in possession. It would undoubtedly be because there were no ex-Service men in the locality who wanted a house.

Mr. Hale: Who wanted to buy a house at a price.

Mr. Foster: Who wanted to occupy the houses. If there had been any ex-Service men who wanted to be tenants they would have been in the houses, and if there were no ex-Service men who wanted to buy them, the houses would have been available to be sold.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned that some houses had been sold. Those were houses which no ex-Service men wanted to occupy. In those circumstances the Trust sells the houses. But the Trust houses will be sold to the tenants and they will be sold under restrictions as to resale. The House will agree that it would be undesirable to sell the house at a privileged price and then have an ex-Service man sell it outside the list of beneficiaries.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: We are in some confusion here. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman telling us that the Trust, in circumstances where no ex-Service man wants possession of the house, has power to sell the house at


a market price? The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that the houses were worth £1,500, and yet the Trust has no power—this is the purpose of the Bill, as I see it—to sell to ex-Service men. Are the powers of the Trust such that they can dispose of the property when and how they like with the qualifications mentioned and yet they have no power to dispose of it as it was intended by the Bill?

Mr. Foster: That may be the position, but the belief of the Trust is that they have the power to sell to both, but the reason why this is put in the Bill is for confirmation purposes. If the contrary view is right and they have not the power to sell, they will still retain the power to dispose of a house when it is not wanted by the tenant. I do not think the hon. Gentleman wants to make any complaint on that score but is merely seeking for information.

Mr. Mitchison: If I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, the whole purpose of this Bill is to confirm a power which may already exist. Is it the case that this Bill has been brought forward without any test case or any other legal proceedings in Ireland verifying whether the power exists?

Mr. Foster: No, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not correct. He perhaps did not comprehend what I said at the outset in moving the Second Reading, but I may have put it rather clumsily. If I have not made it clear to him I should like to explain that two powers are given in this Bill. One is to sell to the sitting ex-Service tenant, and that is for confirmation purposes, and the other is to sell to widows, which is a new power. Therefore, the object of the Bill is to give the Trust power to sell to the widows. As the Bill had to be introduced anyway the power to sell to the ex-Service men was put in as well just in case the Trust had not got it. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would make a complaint of that.
The position is that the houses will be sold to the tenants or to the widows as provided in the Bill, and the money realised from those houses will be used to build other houses. The value of the houses will differ from case to case, and I do not think it is possible to give any estimate of what the 2,700 odd houses

will realise. It depends when they are sold and what their condition is. The enormous labour of making a survey and a valuation of the houses in every part of the country would be out of all proportion to the value of the information received. The information would not help the Trust to administer its trust more properly or to give to the beneficiaries, the ex-Service men of the 1914–18 War, any greater advantage. What is required is this power to sell to ex-Service men and widows so that the Trust can continue to serve its beneficiaries by providing more houses for the ex-Service men who are still desirous of having one.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West alluded to the accounts, and in the year to which he pointed the administration costs were swollen by the fortuitous event of the retirement of a number of the employees of the Trust, to whom gratuities were given. The administration costs also cover the expense of the administration of the Trust in the sense of sometimes moving the tenant from house to house, getting new tenants in, and in certain cases securing evictions.
The object of the Trust is to benefit the ex-Service men of the 1914–18 War. Under the terms of the Trust it has to benefit these ex-Service men and their widows. If they leave a family—like the instance given of a sister or children—it is thought more in keeping with the principles of the Trust that some other ex-Service man of the 1914–18 War should occupy the house than their dependants. It may be a matter of opinion, but it is certainly carrying out the terms of the Trust that this other ex-Service man should occupy it.

Mr. Paget: What about the houses which nobody wants?

Mr. Foster: The houses which nobody wants are sold in order to provide more houses for the ex-Service men of the 1914–18 War.

Mr. Paget: Cannot the sister of the ex-Service man who dies be left in his house and another ex-Service man have one of the houses which nobody wants?

Mr. Foster: The price realised for that house will provide the other ex-Service man with a house. There is no difference in principle.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Mr. Foster: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. I commend the Bill to the House and assure hon. Members that it is not as complicated as hon. Members have tried to make it——

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale rose——

Mr. Foster: I do not know if the hon. Member was here when I opened the debate, but the grievance was that I did not say enough. Now he complains that I made it complicated. As I have said, the Bill is the result of careful negotiation between the three Governments of Southern Ireland, Northern Ireland and of this country. It is also the result of negotiation with the ex-Service men's organisations. I cannot believe that the Opposition would really want to upset all these negotiations and throw this Bill out in order to satisfy the desire of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, for details of the accounts of the Trust. That is not a worthy consideration for upsetting these negotiations between the three overnments. I assure him that the Government puts forward this Bill as the best way of dealing with a difficult situation, namely, that we are not allowed to charge rents in Eire.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I desire to express my sincere sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman in having to handle this question, because I dealt with it for six years. I am quite certain that such a state of affairs could never arise anywhere except in Ireland. After all, it has been for rather more than a century the national sport of Southern Ireland to avoid paying rent and they have now, in this instance of the game, managed to get a position where the law supports them in that object which they have always had in view. That is the fact with regard to the situation.
For some reason which I was never able to understand, the court in Southern Ireland said, "The tenant cannot pay the rent"—I do not know what they would have done with him if he had—"and the landlord cannot collect it." Yet under the law of Southern Ireland they have allowed evictions to take place. Really the whole thing is so fantastic when a mere Englishman attempts to understand

it that I think any way out of the situation is something that we ought to welcome.
This is a subject which I inherited from previous Governments. A good many of the negotiations to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded took place when I was Home Secretary and I took a substantial part in them. We got towards an agreement, and I am quite certain that there is no other solution than the one which is proposed.
It is difficult enough to know what the proper rent for a house is in this country, and any person who likes to go to the court seems to be able to get quite a new decision that throws out of court all the previous decisions which have been made. Here we are trying to administer what was a United Kingdom trust in another country, where they have decided in their courts that the tenant cannot pay the rent and the landlord cannot collect it.
It is the kind of problem I knew I would come up against any time I tried to investigate any Irish problem without the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who has not graced us with his presence this evening. I have shared all along the view with regard to the fantastic accounts that inevitably arise from the situation that the Irish courts have created. I would like to see some effort still made to see whether this Trust cannot be given power in Southern Ireland to obtain rents for the benefit it confers upon certain people. I know how difficult the negotiation would be. I hope the House will realise that we have had an impossible situation for 19 years, and unless we do something to bring it to an end it will go on creating fresh anomalies and making matters worse.
I wish to end as I began by expressing my sympathy for the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have the greatest possible appreciation of his powers of exposition, but I am quite certain he will agree with me that to expound this position, so far as it can be made intelligible, to any audience of Englishmen, is beyond human capacity.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Drewe.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — INSURANCE CONTRACTS (WAR SETTLEMENT) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER OF HER MAJESTY TO GIVE EFFECT TO CERTAIN AGREEMENTS RELATING TO INSURANCE CONTRACTS.)

The Chairman: In order to put the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in order, a consequential Amendment providing for an alteration of the Title will be required. I understand this has been prepared and that the Amendment can now be admitted.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out paragraph (b).
I am most grateful for the acceptance of this manuscript Amendment to alter the Title of the Bill. When I prepared my original Amendment I did not realise that it was a matter of agreements with several countries, and my Amendment would confine it to one country. Therefore, the plural in the Title would become singular by my Amendment.
The Bill seems to me to raise constitutional questions of very great importance indeed. The law of our Constitution provides that the treaty-making power shall rest with the Prerogative; it shall be exercised by the Executive. But the treaty-making power is a power which cannot affect the rights of the ordinary, individual citizen.
No contract or treaty made by the Government of this country with another country can affect the ordinary rights of an English citizen, can affect his contracts, or can affect his freedom. For the rights of the individual to be taken away from him requires the consent of Parliament in legislation passed for that purpose. By this Bill we are being asked to abrogate that ordinary right of the citizen, not merely as to an agreement which has been made, but as to any agreement which the Government may make and which we do not even see. That is the striking innovation of this Bill.
It has been customary, and there are a good many examples in the past—there were some after the 1914–18 War

—to treat insurance contracts made with nationals of a nation that subsequently becomes our enemy, in a different way to ordinary contracts, and to revive those insurance contracts by subsequent agreement.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my hon. and learned Friend forgive me for a moment? I am most reluctant to interrupt him in the full flight of his oratory or, as it were, to wing him at this moment. Normally, we are told what the Amendment is before we hear the remarks. I should be grateful to know what the Amendment is, because I am so much in the habit of applying my mind in that direction that I am finding it awfully difficult to understand my hon. and learned Friend's introductory remarks without knowing what the Amendment is to be.

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but it is not very easy to understand what the Amendment is until the principle of the Amendment is explained. The Amendment is, quite simply, to leave out paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1). Paragraph (b) gives to the Government power to make agreements in the future which we do not see and some of which have not, I understand, yet been negotiated, and to allow those agreements to affect the right of ordinary citizens. That is the effect of this agreement.
It is customary for nations—at least, it is a fairly recent custom; there are precedents—for nations to come to agreements subsequently to a war to give effect to insurance contracts which were made before the war and which, in accordance with the normal law, would have ceased to exist when the parties to the contracts became enemies.
An agreement to that effect has been come to with Finland. That agreement, being an agreement between the British Government and the Finnish Government, does not affect the right of any party to any of those insurances by itself. It can only affect these individual rights when we in Parliament so provide, because only Parliament can affect the rights of individual British citizens. Now, the agreement having been come to with Finland, then it is perfectly proper for the Government to come to the House of Commons and ask the House to give legal effect to that agreement which has


been come to; because, otherwise, the agreement is futile since it would not affect the rights of individuals.
10.45 p.m.
In a subsequent new Clause, which I hope to move later, I shall propose that these provisions affecting individual rights ought to be put into the Bill and thus become an Act of Parliament. Whether one does this in that way, which I think is preferable, or whether one does it by authorising the Government to legislate by Order in Council, one still has the agreement. One knows what the agreement is, and one knows what are the rights of individuals whom one is affecting; and one can ask those individuals who are having liabilities created which did not exist before, and are having rights given them which did not exist before, whether they have been consulted and what has happened.
But, for the Government to go further, and say, "Not only do we ask you to give legislative sanction to what we have agreed, but we ask for a blank cheque as authority in advance to take away the rights of individuals and to create liabilities which did not exist before in accordance with any agreement we may come to in the future," is going further than, I think, this House has ever gone in the past. Moreover, it is going further than it ought to go. The proper procedure is to wait until the agreements are made and if, when made, they affect the rights of individuals, and to make them effective legislation will be required, then legislation can be come to.
I put it to the Committee that it is wrong to ask us to surrender our rights as guardians of the individual and to authorise the prerogative to step beyond the bounds by which it is limited, and has been limited, throughout the growth of our Constitution. To allow prerogative without legislation for the creation of liabilities for individuals, and to take away rights which have existed, and to create rights between citizen and citizen which did not exist before, is something which, in my submission, must not be allowed by this Committee.

Mr. Hale: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the clear and lucid way in which he has put this very important point and for the way in which he has called attention to this

most strange abrogation of principle. The agreement was made in 1949; some three years ago. No doubt it was one which presented some difficulties in negotiating, because the Committee will notice that the effective date is August, 1941—some 11 years ago.
We are, of course, not dealing with the period when the gallant Finns were dealing with the wicked Russians, but that period when the wicked Russians were fighting with the gallant Finns. When we come to the other agreement, it may be that the complexity of the period, when we were rushing arms to the Finns, will give rise to some difficulties in the field of all insurance and arouse our curiosity on the change—and some might say the unmerited change—from allies to declared enemies.
My hon. and learned Friend has put the point with such clarity that there is very little left for me to add. I do agree with him, and it seems to me to be a most incredible proposition that the House should be asked to give a blank cheque to the making of these exceedingly complex agreements.
This particular agreement is one which contains 24 clauses, some of them of the greatest possible complexity. Indeed, I venture to say, with all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman who, speaks with such authority on these matters, that I very much doubt whether half-a-dozen people in this House could really explain in detail just what is the effect of this particular agreement in the field of re-insurance alone. At the appropriate time, I may have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary some questions upon that point.
What the Government in effect are now suggesting in this paragraph is that, in making agreements in future, complex and detailed as they may be, each and every clause of which will inevitably vary the contractual rights—and heaven knows we have been lectured enough by people opposite on the sanctity of contracts and the undesirability of upsetting contractual rights and the need for the limitation of the power of the State to interfere as between citizen and citizen—we are not going to worry about the solemnity of contractual obligations.
We shall say, by this paragraph (b), that there shall be power by Order in


Council to make confirming Orders validating one or more of a series of international agreements—long, detailed, complex agreements, affecting the contractual rights of people in all parts of the world, that cannot be subject to amendment, that will be, under a later Clause, subject to affirmative Resolution of each House, but which cannot be varied, criticised in detail or be subject to amendment, but which will be brought before the House in such a way that we shall have no right whatever to raise any of the really complex matters that arise upon them.
There is no guarantee that the agreements will be in the same or similar form, that the same principles will be applied, or that the same view will be taken of a contract of insurance, or that the vast complexity of matters dealing with marine insurance, aviation insurance, war and life insurance will be dealt with in the same way. It is now said "No, all that we are going to say is that, not merely that an Order in Council can be made to confirm, but also to add a whole variety of other matters," which it may not be appropriate to discuss at this moment.
My hon. and learned Friend has put down an Amendment which may give us a chance of raising some of the curiosities that may be incorporated in the Order in Council, including the right to give an individual citizen exemption from Stamp Duty provided by the Stamp Act; in other words, to make discriminating taxation in an Order in Council.
That is a quite indefensible proposition, and I would have said that it was completely indefensible coming from any political party, but, coming from the party which preached the sanctity of contracts, it is quite the most extraordinary proposition that has ever been put before the House.
I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman really to consider the matter. What would be the effect of leaving this Clause out? It would merely be that the Government would come along with a one-Clause Bill, producing the agreement as before, and at least giving us the right to do what we have done now and seek to put into the Bill details so that they shall be available for the consideration of the House and for the consideration of all those

people charged with the important duty of administering and interpreting these complex provisions.
That is all that is suggested. Surely, it is eminently reasonable that when this Government or any future Government negotiates a detailed agreement the House should have some control over it and some right of criticism of it, and certainly some right of amendment. Even under the procedure tonight Her Majesty's Government have taken a course which appears to be designed to limit our rights of amendment as much as possible. Even under that procedure we do not have embodied in the Bill the terms, and have them so embodied that they are subject to amendment. But that is a matter which I can elaborate more fully on an Amendment in the Committee stage.
That itself might be a matter for protest, but to suggest that we are going to embody by reference agreements not now negotiated, agreements to be negotiated by some Government in the future, agreements without any limiting rights at all about what details will be inserted and in which the only provision that has to be made is that they are agreements which have been agreed to by the representatives of the two Governments concerned, is certainly something to which we cannot agree.
There never was a more crude or a more oppressive assertion of the rights of the Executive against the rights of this House. I would challenge the recollection of the oldest Parliamentarian here to say whether there has been a more flagrant example, not merely of delegated legislation, but of the delegation of a general power to do things in future.
I remember in the 1945–50 Parliament we had many a long debate on the question of retrospective legislation. I have noted that the opinions and views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have altered somewhat since they took office. That is a very natural thing. To some extent I have noticed it happen on this side of the House, but not to the same extent. But I certainly have never heard anyone argue in this House that it would be a good thing not merely to have retrospective legislation, but to have legislation for the future, legislation conferring and delegating power for future action over a wide field and thus depriving the


House of the right to consider the agreements made.
It is adding to the power of the Crown. It is 180 years since the House passed legislation saying that the power of the Crown was to be diminished. If we are to go back to the time of Wilkes for our progressive views and if now it is really the view that we should add to the power of the Crown, and add still more to the wide variety of treaty powers over which this House has so little control and little more power than to say yea or nay in the approval of the Government of the day, then it seems to me there ought to be the most serious protest we can make. I am grateful, and I think the whole Committee is, to the right hon. Gentleman for having raised this exceedingly important point.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present——

11.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I should like to assure the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that I have not altered the views I expressed on constitutional questions at a period when I was in opposition. I should like also to say, in defence of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), and of the leaders of his party in another place, that they have not been so careless of constitutional propriety nor mistaken their duties in the way that has been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
I am sorry that neither the hon. and learned Member for Northampton nor the hon. Member for Oldham, West was present, I think, when I explained this Bill in the Second Reading debate. I regret that because a good many misconceptions which they seem now to entertain would, I think, have been removed had they heard the explanation. But, let me say at once that I welcome the fact that they very properly concerned themselves with constitutional principles in a Bill of this kind. The effect of accepting this Amendment, however, would be to limit the operation of this Bill entirely to the case of the Finnish Agreement so that when an almost precisely similar agreement was made with any other Power, which was an enemy in the late war, a further Act of

Parliament would be necessary. We shall all agree that that would be an unnecessary and foolish procedure unless it were required on the grounds of justice or the necessity of Parliamentary control.
I concede at once to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and to the hon. Member for Oldham, West that if it were necessary on these grounds, I should not be resisting this Amendment. In an occasional passage in the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Oldham, West they seemed to think that this Bill enabled the Executive to enter some agreement which the Executive was not already able to enter. That, as I know the hon. and learned Member for Northampton would agree, is not so. This Bill is necessary for the purpose to which both hon. Members have alluded, namely, to give legislative effect to the agreement, when it has been reached, in the sense of making it part of the law of the land, thus, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton says, affecting the rights of individuals and so forth.
Under this paragraph (b), which it is sought to delete, nothing whatsoever can be done without the express approval of each House of Parliament. Without such express approval no change in the law can be made. The idea that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has that there is some great new invasion of private rights, possibly uncontrolled by Parliament, is, therefore, completely incorrect. There is one power, and one power alone, that the House will not have, and that is the power to amend. I agree that, while the rights of Parliament are fully secured by the legislation, it is subordinate legislation, which does not enable the House to amend. But, if the Members of the Committee will think about the matter a little more deeply, they will see they are losing nothing thereby. There never has been power to amend treaty provisions dealing with contracts of insurance.
As I explained on Second Reading, in the treaties after the first World War, such as the Treaty of Versailles, contracts of insurance were dealt with by special provisions in the Treaty itself. Then subsequently there was an Order in Council to make the required change in English municipal law. After the recent war a different procedure was adopted in the case of many of these treaties, which dealt with ordinary contracts but left agree-


ment regarding contracts of insurance to be negotiated subsequently. Such an agreement has been negotiated in the case of Finland, and substantially negotiated in other cases. In the case of Finland, it has been embodied by an interchange of letters in a Government agreement, which it is sought by this Bill to carry into law through an Order in Council.
The fact that the House loses nothing through the inability to amend is obvious from the fact that, if an agreement has been reached between two nations, either nation can refuse to give effect to that agreement but neither nation can possibly proceed to amend it unilaterally without making the whole thing futile. Let us take the Finnish Agreement for example. The House is not parting with the control it has over the rights of British subjects even when the Bill has passed, because the Order in Council has got to come up as an affirmative Resolution, and it must then be either accepted or rejected. There would be no point whatever in the Government negotiating and making an agreement, and then saying that one side could unilaterally amend it. Does the hon. Member for Oldham, West wish to intervene?

Mr. Hale: I only want to make a perfectly simple point. The hon. and learned Member is perfectly right. Once this agreement is made—and it was made in 1949, which is three years ago—it is exceedingly difficult to amend it, because that would affect international friends and international relationships. But it was negotiated three years ago, and under that agreement not any rights of a single Englishman can be affected until this House passes the Bill in all its stages. The contractual rates are not affected by the Bill because the Government have not the power to do it.
If the Government enter into an agreement which this Committee thinks unfairly or improperly affect the contractual rights of the citizens of the country and incorporate that in a Clause of this Bill, which this Committee rejects, it will then be for the Government to consider whether they should resign or not. I would not express any opinion as to whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would see any advantage in such a course, but I must confess that I see many.

Mr. Strauss: I want to be fair to the argument advanced by the hon. Member, for I understand how deeply he feels about it. Her Majesty's Government can make a future agreement with any other country, as they have made past agreements, without coming to the House of Commons at all. The question is the method by which the matter should come before the House. There is nothing novel in essence in what is proposed now. After the 1914–18 War what was required was achieved by Order in Council under the Treaty of Peace Act. It will be achieved in the case of the Finnish Treaty by Order in Council, and in the case of those other treaties with which this present paragraph which it is sought to delete is concerned, it will be achieved by Order in Council.
If the House of Commons does not like the agreement, it will have no power to alter the agreement but will have absolute power to refuse to make it part of the law. The House will have the utmost power that it can possibly require. The House cannot by its action alter the terms of an international agreement. Whilst I appreciate the care for constitutional principle which guided hon. Members opposite to concern themselves with this paragraph, I assure them that it gives no wholly novel power to the Executive to put anything in the law of the land without the control of Parliament.
We are not driven by any consideration of justice or constitutional propriety to do what every Member of the Committee would realise would be quite inexcusable to do unless we were compelled, namely, to have the necessity of an individual Bill for every agreement of this kind that is made. They are all more or less in the same form.

Mr. Paget: I am very glad to hear from the Minister that he is going to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: I suppose that is a joke, and no doubt it will be explained to me why it is funny. But it is quite clear that I am advising every hon. Member, however much he concerns himself with questions of constitutional principle or constitutional questions, that there is no merit whatsoever in the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: The Minister is giving that advice owing to a complete miscon-


ception, which I think I shall soon be able to explain to him. He said at the commencement of his speech that if, in fact, the rights of the House of Commons as to the protection of individuals was being taken away he would accept the Amendment. I hope he stands by that undertaking which he gave to the Committee at the beginning of his speech.
I will now show him how this provision does take away from the House of Commons the right to protect individuals. The whole assumption of his speech and his argument was based as follows, as he put it: this Bill simply empowers the Government to make treaties and agreements which it makes with another Power binding upon the individual citizen. The right to make the agreement with the other Power is not affected by this Bill. This Bill simply enables the agreement which is made to be binding upon individuals.
If this were so, I should agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. But this Bill does much more than that. Of course, when an agreement has been negotiated with another country, it cannot be amended unilaterally here. But look what the Bill does:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council do all such things as appear to Her to be necessary for carrying into effect——
It then goes on to say:
Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding sub-section, an Order in Council under this section giving effect to any such Agreement as aforesaid may make provision for transferring, by virtue of the Order and without any liability to stamp duty, to such persons as may be determined by or under the Order any rights and liabilities vested in a custodian of enemy property which arise under contracts of insurance or reinsurance to which the Agreement relates.
11.15 p.m.
There, immediately, is something which is not in the agreement, but which is a manner of affecting individual rights to give effect to it. There may be a variety of ways, affecting rights differently, which are means of giving effect to the agreement. The Government makes an agreement; it cannot be amended. They now take power to affect people's rights to give effect to it. The whole variety of ways in which people's rights are affected operate the agreement. The Finnish Agreement is an example. The Orders to be made here are not simply Orders setting out

the agreements that the Government makes with a foreign Government they are Orders empowering him to make all sorts of supplemental provisions affecting the rights of individuals, so that the Government may choose their particular way of affecting particular rights in order to effect the agreement.
The Parliamentary Secretary must now see very clearly that the whole basis of his argument—that the agreement cannot be amended—is without any validity, and I ask him to fulfil his undertaking and accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, to leave out from "Order" to the second "to," in line 1, page 2.
Subsection (2) of the Clause reads:
Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, an Order in Council under this section giving effect to any such Agreement as aforesaid may make provision for transferring, by virtue of the Order and without any liability to stamp duty, to such persons as may be determined by or under the Order any rights and liabilities vested in a custodian of enemy property which arises under contracts of insurance or reinsurance to which the Agreement relates.
The simple meaning of this Amendment is to eliminate the words "without any liability". I hope I shall have hon. Members with me on this point, which has been raised on previous legislation, when I am sure there was considerable sympathy with what I am seeking to do. To start with, if we are to make special provisions in relation to the relief from general taxation of individuals, it seems to me rather surprising that we should select what is generally regarded as one of the most profitable and remunerative of activities in the City of London.
But I should not like to base it on that ground; I would rather base my point on the simple one of equity. There has been an increasing habit in recent years, for which all parties are responsible and in which all parties in their turn have taken part, to exempt all sorts and sizes of Government Departments from the obligations that the Government so freely place upon all the other citizens of the country. Time after time we find that Departments, Ministers, secretariats, and so on, are exempted from the day to day liabilities which are exacted from citizens and, indeed, are calculated to exacerbate them.
We find that Ministers, civil servants and others seem to have no knowledge of what telephones cost these days, and so on. It is a bad principle. It will be said, and with some truth, that if they pay the Stamp Duty it is only charged to the Department concerned; it only means putting a figure on one side of the Revenue Account and then on another. I still think it a bad principle that we should have these special exemptions.
But this Clause goes much further than that. This is a proposal that an Order in Council, subject only to affirmative Resolution,
may make provision for transferring, by virtue of the Order and without any liability to stamp duty, to such persons as may be determined by or under the Order any rights and liabilities vested in a custodian of enemy property which arise under contracts of insurance or reinsurance to which the Agreement relates.
In point of fact I know that there is one problem in this matter which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) could deal with much more effectively than I could because he has a much greater knowledge of this subject than I have. There is always an argument about the amount of Stamp Duty; there is always this controversy as to whether it is a general agreement or ad valorem and it often varies considerably. It may be a case of 10s. or £500, according to the magnitude of the transaction.
It is quite monstrous for the Government to come along—if that be their reason—and say, "Because we have never clarified this matter, because there has been argument and litigation about it, we propose to record the exemption rather than go to the trouble of laying down clear and unequivocal provisions which would enable the appropriate Stamp Duty to be ascertained." I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman has far too much sense of logic to advance that argument, although I believe it is one which is never wholly absent from the minds of the Parliamentary draftsmen.
There is also the argument that there may be loss by reason of war and no one will gain. It is a bad principle to make provision for relief from Stamp Duty. I should have thought that one

of the things we boasted of in this country, and one of the things we have a right to boast of, is that on the whole—subject to the exception of Ministerial Departments to which I have already referred—each citizen is treated the same before the law, and equality before the law is a fundamental principle which is the basis of our system of justice.
It may sound extravagant if I say that if you push this argument to its logical conclusion you could make your Order in Council exempt individuals from Income Tax or from any other impost imposed by the Budget.
It is unfortunate that under our rules I could not refer to this matter in the course of the preceding debate. The Committee will remember that the Parliamentary Secretary advanced the point that there was no necessity to be able to amend the provisions of an Order because all it would do would be to embody an agreement which would not be valid. Now, when we move on a line or two, we find that an Order in Council is to vary the provisions of the existing law with regard to the collection of finance and the imposition of taxation. It is to make a special exemption.
I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will say this has happened before. So it has, and on every occasion I have noticed it I have protested about it—and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has protested, too. Whatever Government has been in power we have opposed discriminatory provisions. I suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to be co-operative and facilitate the business of the Committee this evening, this is an Amendment he could readily accept.
It would mean that, in dealing with these agreements, the ordinary law of the land would continue to apply, the Order in Council would give no right for special exemption, and so far as the liability for the disposal of enemy property is concerned—and I think in the main it would fall on those to whom the assets were being transferred—it would only be a question of balancing one figure in the ledger against another. However that may be, I can think of no reason for which the Parliamentary Secretary can resist this Amendment, which merely seeks to re-establish a principle which has already had too many abrogations.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I most earnestly hope that even at this late hour the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said, but I have two other reasons which may not have occurred to the Minister and which I now wish to put to him. The first is this Bill itself. It comes, of course, from another place and if that other place had by itself done what it proposes to us should be authorised by Orders in Council, or had suggested that it should be done, there would have been a clear breach of Privilege.
I do not think there can be very much doubt about it, but may I ask the Minister to look at Erskine May where he will find that as early as 1671:
That in all aids given to the King by the Commons, the rent, or tax ought not be altered by the Lords.
The proposal is to alter the incidence of a certain tax. The proposal it is true is that it should be done by Order in Council, but I will come to that in a moment. If it had been proposed in the Bill there would have been a breach of Privilege.
Erskine May also says:
The Commons treat as a breach of privilege by the Lords not merely the imposition or increase of such a charge, but also any alteration, whether by increase or reduction, of its amount or its duration, mode of assessment, levy, collection, appropriation or management. …
There is not the slightest doubt that this provision could not have been brought forward from another place in itself. Again, if one looks upon the following page it so happens that one of the instances given of the restriction of the Lords right to initiate a Bill is a case in which two Private Bills were laid aside because when sent down by the Lords they contained a Clause imposing Stamp Duty.
11.30 p.m.
What is suggested here is that another place, which could not itself, without breach of Privilege, propose any exemption from Stamp Duty, puts before this House a proposal that an exemption from Stamp Duty should be authorised by Order in Council. That is a very easy way to get round questions of Privilege. One does not put forward the breach of Privilege; one merely puts forward a

proposal that it should be authorised by Order in Council.
The House of Commons is always very jealous, and rightly very jealous, of its rights in this matter, and if the Government are, as their Members have from time to time claimed, guardians of the Constitution, I can only say that I am ashamed of them for in any way conniving at this ingenious method of promoting rights in another place which that other place ought not to have.
After all, what is there in it? It has just been pointed out, quite clearly, that at the most this is a matter of accounting. Are we to have this carried any further beyond the point where it is a mere matter of accounting? What limits are to be put to it? If that which, obviously, when proposed as a statutory provision would be a gross breach of Privilege, is now to be proposed merely in the form of an authority to make Orders in Council, the technical rules as to Privilege may have been been successfully avoided, but they will have been avoided by a party which has used the machinery of Government to impeach the Privileges of the House of Commons. On that ground, I suggest that this provision ought to be dropped because of its place of origin.
The next point is even more serious. It has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). This agreement, made, I notice, between British and Finnish insurers, deals among other matters with treaties of marine reinsurance—that is, in Clause 10; and in Clause 12 it deals with contracts of facultative reinsurance. The most remarkable thing about this treaty or agreement is that it appears to recognise what are bound to be illegal agreements under the law of this country.
It is not a question of how much Stamp Duty one puts on a treaty of marine insurance or a contract of facultative insurance. I need hardly remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, who will shortly be replying, that it cannot be stamped at all. It is an illegal agreement; it is not a valid contract of marine insurance because it does not state the amount insured. I am quite certain that that elementary proposition must have been very well known to all those who were concerned, not only as business men, but as negotiators in making these agreements.
I quite agreed with what has just been said that it is not within the power of the House to vary treaties, but when somewhat doubtful provisions of this sort are introduced we come to consider what the effect of this exemption from Stamp Duty is. What exactly is meant? Does it mean that the agreements themselves are to be exempt from Stamp Duty? Does it mean that there could be some Stamp Duty on the transfer of an agreement which itself cannot be stamped and is, therefore, invalid? I should like a clear answer on both those points, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will go a little bit further than he has.
I have already called attention in the House to the absurdity of continuing the provisions which make these contracts which have been in use in the City of London for years and decades and which are unstampable and, therefore, illegal, and which deprive the Revenue of duty. To have that position at a time when we are all being asked, and indeed, urged, to collect as much for public funds as possible and then spend it as prudently as we can, is something which ought not to be. To waste a potential tax in this way, while wasting the time of Parliament by introducing some of the Measures we have had to discuss lately, when the time could be more profitably used by legislating for tax collection, is something I cannot understand.
I cannot mention all those Measures; the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill is one. But to lose this revenue seems to me to be an improvidence of administration and a folly of legislation of which only the present Government could be capable. But, there it is. The broad evil remains. The particular omission could be rectified, but so long as it stands, then this exemption from Stamp Duty is not merely to be put in for convenience, but in order to get public authorities concerned out of what otherwise would be an inextricable and hopeless mess. That kind of thing should not be done. When it is within the power of a Government to introduce legislation remedying such a mess, it merely deals with it on each relative occasion by giving a special exemption.
If I may say so, I am particularly glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in his place, for he was singularly lucid in his excusions into

the realms of marine insurance on a recent occasion and delighted us all. If his right hon. Friend, the Minister, would only consult with him, I am sure he would say, "My boy, get rid of this mess in a sensible way. Instead of having something in each Bill have one provision designed to prevent the Government, and its servants, from putting its foot into the mud in which the City of London has wallowed for so long."

Mr. H. Strauss: I assure the Committee that the effect of the words it is sought to delete is not to make a major change in the law regarding the stamping of documents. Perhaps, in order that hon. Members of the Committee may have some idea of the subject matter with which we are dealing, I might repeat part of the speech I made on Second Reading when dealing with subsection (2). I then said:
Subsection (2) provides a convenient way of dealing with these facts. Under Orders made under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the interests of Germans in insurance contracts were vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property. This subsection enables those interests to be transferred back and that can be effected by a general revesting provision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1952; Vol. 504, c, 1047]
It is obviously convenient, in order to carry out, for example, the Finnish Agreement, that the various assureds, whose interest is vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property, may again be put in possession of that interest. It has nothing whatever to do with the stamping of a contract of insurance. What we are concerned with is whether a document re-vesting those interests shall bear a stamp, and it is above all necessary that it shall be clear whether the document shall bear a stamp or not. I say that it is obviously convenient that it should not bear a stamp.
If a single re-vesting Order is to cover the cases of hundreds of assignees, how would it be possible to collect a tiny proportion of the stamp from each assignee? It is a far more convenient proposal, and far more in accordance with the precedents set by all Governments, to have a simple provision that there shall be freedom from Stamp Duty.
I will quote only two examples to the Committee. One I remember well, because it is a precedent set by the wartime Coalition Government and because it happened on the first Measure which it was my duty to conduct through this


House—the Minister of Works and Planning Act, 1942. There, a precedent will be found in Section 5 (5); but let me give another precedent from the legislation passed by Her Majesty's present Opposition. In the Finance Act, 1946, hon. Members will find a precedent in Section 52 of which the marginal note is "Exemption from Stamp Duty of documents connected with nationalisation schemes." I am sure hon. Members opposite will think that a most respectable precedent.
There really is an obvious convenience in these statutes making clear that the Order in Council can allow this re-vesting without the document having a stamp. It is a convenient course, it is the right course, and it is a course with many precedents. I say the provision in the Bill is right, and I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the rather serious constitutional point about Privilege, to which I devoted some considerable time and to which he has made no reply whatever? With regard to the point to which he did seek to reply, may I ask him to answer one question which I asked him? How could you have stamped these documents anyhow, and what would the Stamp Duty on them have been?

Mr. Strauss: If it were as difficult as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests to ascertain what the Stamp Duty would be, that would seem to me an additional reason showing the wisdom of the Government in providing that there shall be none. On the question of Privilege, I must say that, although I have made some study of Privilege on many occasions, I would never venture to make such confident statements regarding Privilege as the hon. and learned Gentleman made; but I am fairly confident that, had there been a breach of Privilege by another place in regard to this Measure, Mr. Speaker would have brought it to our attention in the usual manner.

Mr. Mitchison: With respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite misunderstood me. I very carefully said that a breach of Privilege had not been committed. I did not for a moment suggest that it had. What I was pointing out was that this was an ingenious

and undesirable way of enabling another place to raise questions which if raised in a straight form would involve the most serious breach of Privilege, and that suggestion remains entirely unanswered.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Strauss: On that I at once plead guilty of having misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, and for that I apologise. He has made his point, and made it twice. I can only express my view that there is nothing in it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely we cannot leave the matter there. I think my hon. and learned Friend put the point in all seriousness and that it calls for a more courteous reply than the Minister has given up to now.
In a few minutes we shall be discussing the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." That will, I think give the Minister time to consider the point. I suggest that there is no reason why we should engender heat in this matter. It is a matter of general interest to the Committee. I suggest in all seriousness and with all good will that it would be as well to clear up the point if we can, and if there is an answer that it should be given to us tonight.

Mr. Strauss: If I was guilty of any lack of courtesy, I certainly apologise; but I may say that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are fairly old personal friends, and I do not think that either of us is averse to hard hitting. It may be my folly, but I can detect very little in the point. That may well be due to the weakness of my intelligence. If, perhaps, at a later stage I can add anything on this point I will do so.

Mr. Hale: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has tried his hardest to be courteous and to explain the matter. But it seems to me that he has only succeeded in making confusion a little worse confounded on the main issue because, if I understand his explanation, what he is saying is that the only document with which we are concerned is the Order in Council. There will be power under it to make a general transference of rights and of enemy property.
I really thought that what he was saying was that the Order in Council would deal with the whole matter collectively and that therefore we were not


affecting individual rights in the way I suggested. The answer is that in no circumstances would an Order in Council bear a Stamp Duty.

Mr. Strauss: I was not dealing with any Stamp Duty on an Order in Council. This matter deals with what for convenience I would call a general or omnibus revesting document which could be made by Order in Council.

Mr. Hale: With great respect, what is the point of a general re-vestment document? I suggest that such documents have to be essentially individual documents because in most cases we shall be dealing with nothing but actionable rights, with the right to recover from somebody else, with powers under a contract or with the benefits of an insurance risk that has occurred, and so on.
In some cases, of course, the Custodian of Enemy Property will be in possession of immense sums which have to be allocated. It may be that as far as that is concerned it could be done comprehensively. But I imagine there would have to be a whole series of documents affecting individual rights, and, in general, the liability for Stamp Duty would be on the recipient.
Therefore, I venture to suggest that I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation is one that can be accepted. The actual wording of the Clause is a little obscure. It says:
may make provision for transferring, by virtue of the Order and without any liability to stamp duty, to such persons as may be determined by or under the Order.
It seems to be that the words "or under" are the controlling words in this respect. If the Order were able to ascertain by reference the individuals who were to benefit and were able to indicate the rights they had acquired in some measure of detail, there might have been something in the point.
As I apprehend, they will be indicated only as a class of persons of certain nationalities, having certain rights, and it will be for the Custodian of Enemy Property to allocate them. It seems one can only do it by detailed agreement and by specifying conditions. If the Parliamentary Secretary refers to the Clause, he will see it is transferring not merely rights but liabilities. One cannot transfer individual

liabilities to persons of a different country by Order in Council, and without the provision of some special and detailed agreement. In these circumstances, and by virtue of this agreement, there ought to be inserted contracts transferring rights and liabilities, and specifying the rights and liabilities which would normally attract Stamp Duty, and to which the exemption given should not be given.

Mr. H. Strauss: I should like to correct one slip I made in my last intervention. I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is right, and that it would be for the Order in Council itself to make this general revesting. On the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman—on what, in view of the correction, I do not know, whether I should call a case of Privilege or a case bordering on Privilege—whichever it is, I am not saying whether it is serious or is not serious. I am advised that it is not a matter upon which a Minister should express an opinion. It is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hale: The hon. and learned Gentleman now says that the Order will vest, but the Order in Council is part of the Royal Prerogative, and, therefore, cannot be liable to Stamp Duty. If that is the vesting Order, he has made his point that there is no necessity for these words at all.

Mr. Strauss: The vesting Orders were general Orders, and they have never been stamped. But the question of whether they should have been or should not have been is not absolutely clear. I think all hon. Members are familiar with some of the difficulties in the Stamp Act. Just as the general vesting Orders have been made always without a stamp, so, I think, it is obviously convenient that the revesting Order should bear no stamp. The precedents of all Governments which I have quoted are very good ones. This is a case where it would be foolish to provide for a stamp and where, I suggest, the provision in the Clause is correct. That being so, hon. Members might withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Paget: I have put down a new Clause, which is really a Clause in substitution of Clause 1 and cannot be called unless Clause 1 is rejected. I would suggest that in the case of future legislation, where one is creating schemes which affect individuals' rights, that what one is doing ought to be put into that Act of Parliament. What is the objection to this here, when we are asked to give legislative force to an agreement, every single clause of which affects individual rights and creates rights which did not exist before? When one is legislating in such a very personal manner regarding individuals, why not insert what one is doing into the Act rather than leave it to be dealt with by Order in Council?
I believe that the new Clause which I have drafted will do what is intended in a satisfactory manner, and not only that but it will do it in a manner in which each individual can find what his rights are by looking at the law instead of having to search in statutory rules and orders which are subject to various variations. Would it not be more businesslike to do it in the way we are suggesting in this new Clause?

Mr. Hale: I want to make just one point in a sentence, and I will not weary the Committee [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If there are protests at my brevity I will be prepared to yield to them.
The practising solicitor is the man who has to advise the public on these matters. To do so he has got to have a rather hefty library. Indeed, it is often said that one of the hardest things is where to find one's law. It may be true that in London there are reasonable facilities and libraries available, but when the man in Manchester or Leicester or Birmingham is called upon to advise in this matter he is not even going to have the explanatory note.
In this Committee we at least are told the number of the Command Paper and where to find out the exceeding complex provisions which run into 24 Clauses. A man who is called upon to advise in this matter finds that this is
an Act to provide for carrying into effect Agreements with certain foreign Governments with respect to contracts of insurance and reinsurance.…
Then he finds that the only reference to the real subject matter is to an exchange of Notes between His Majesty's

Government and the Government of Finland on 28th of December, 1945. There is no indication as to where he can find that exchange of Notes, and I am bound to say I should have thought that there are hardly ten solicitors out of the 30,000 in England who know when and how to look for it. Certainly, it could not be found in any provincial town.
It is not the fault of the Parliamentary Secretary and I am not blaming him. He has enough to carry without being blamed for this system, which has gone on for some time, and about which I have protested hitherto. These things ought to be available, and in a country where the people are deemed to know the law it is a little monstrous that part of the legislation makes it absolutely impossible to obtain it. It is quite shocking that we should pass Acts of Parliament which do not contain sufficient information to enable anyone to find out where the details are. They are kept out of the Bill for one purpose, to prevent us from debating these complex matters in detail.
It is rather an amazing Measure, and this is rather a hotch-potch Clause. Not the least Gilbertian aspect of it is that we begin at the finish, and where we will end I hesitate to prophesy. I have made my point, and I do not want to labour it, nor do I wish to suggest that we should vote against the Clause standing part of the Bill.

Mr. H. Strauss: I should like to say a word in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton which he has put forward in a new Clause, which I think is unlikely to be called, but I can assure him that his Clause will not do. When he sees the Order in Council and what it contains he will find that his Clause is both inadequate and in some respects wrong.

Mr. Paget: But surely that could not better demonstrate the falsity of the argument which he advanced the last time, that an Order in Council could not in any event be amended as it was simply an agreement negotiated with another country, which could not be varied unilaterally.

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. and learned Member will look at his new Clause, he will find that he has left out quite important bits of the agreement. As to the points raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, he knows, of course, where he can find the agreement, that is, in the White Paper. But I quite agree with him that in due course he must have somewhere where he can look for his law. That, of course, will be in the Order in Council.
It is better to have it in the Order in Council which Parliament can approve or Parliament can reject—I admit it cannot be amended—rather than to put an immense amount in the Bill which Parliament can amend, a thing which it would be perfectly useless for Parliament to do.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — IMMINGHAM AND GRIMSBY DOCKS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.)

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I apologise to hon. Members and servants of the House for raising this matter at so late an hour. I only do so because the point at issue is one of importance in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituency. If I may be allowed to say so in parentheses, I remember reading in my history books that lawyers were regarded as a nuisance in the Parliament of Edward I. I do not think that things have changed much since in that respect.
I plead with the Minister that more money shall be spent in Grimsby commercial docks and in Immingham docks. Since the war these docks have been very badly neglected. In the case of the Grimsby commercial docks, especially, I am advised that there is great danger of their falling into complete decay and that unless they are modernised fairly

quickly the transport authorities may be tempted to close them down altogether. Neither Immingham nor Grimsby have had anything like a fair share of the money that has been spent on the Eastern ports.
The extent to which Grimsby commercial docks have declined can best be illustrated by two facts. Before the war there were from Grimsby commercial docks 15 weekly ships' sailings and one fortnightly. Today there are only two weekly and one fortnightly sailing. That great decline in sailings indicates how this port has fallen.
To put it in another way, during the years 1931–37, which were supposed to be the bad years, the years of depression, there went through this commercial port at Grimsby an average annual tonnage of 561,000 tons, excluding coke and coal. For the past three years, 1949–51, the amount was only 366,000 tons, excluding coal and coke. Therefore, there has been a fall of nearly 50 per cent. as compared with those years before the war. It is because of the lack of modern facilities that the trade has been going from these ports. The question has been raised time and time again since the war and nothing has been done. I plead now that we be given no more fair promises, but that some real action be taken.
In January, 1949, at the North Midland Regional Board of Industry, it was stated that the two ports were not only handicapped by out-of-date equipment but, at that time, only about 15–20 per cent. of the berth space was being used. That was an absolute scandal from the local point of view. It was stated that although the dockers in the area had done a very good job, they had not magnetic equipment, like other ports, for dealing with the scrap metal brought in from Germany; and since everything had to be manhandled the work was done extremely slowly. That was not in any respect the fault of the workers.
From that conference two promises were made by different Government Departments, The Board of Trade said that the ports' future development and railway facilities were then being considered. That was four years ago, and so far as I can find out nothing came of that consideration. If it did, we have seen no actual results in the port. Then the Ministry of Transport said that, following


a report on the turn-round of shipping, a small team of experts had been formed to consider increased mechanisation at these ports. That, again, was four years ago, and nothing has been done. What has happened to these two Departmental reports, and why was not some action taken?
A month later, Sir Reginald Hill, then chairman of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, made an astonishing statement. He said that there was no intention of abandoning Grimsby—that is the commercial docks, not the fish docks—and Immingham merely because there had been a lot of money lost in them. He added—this is what I want the Minister to deal with—that it is no use spending money fitting a dock for work which it is not going to do. Who says that the Grimsby and Immingham docks are not going to do work? Why should a Government Department say that these two docks are not going to be given work? Then he went on to make this startling statement, as far as the constituents of mine and the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) are concerned: "It is no use having three ports to do the work of one." Why should all the work be sent to Hull, and Grimsby and Immingham be starved?
I am told by my constituents who work at Immingham that there have been times when ships had been left in the Humber for three or four days waiting a berth in Hull, while berths just across the river at Immingham were idle. That wastes shipping and labour, and I suppose the explanation would be merely that the facilities on the south side of the river are not so good as those on the north side. The answer is not to keep plugging traffic to Hull, but to equip our ports so that we can deal with the traffic equally well.
Local tradespeople have done their best to try and increase the ports' traffic. In 1951 they managed to induce the British car exporters, who are charterers of ships, to ship one load from Immingham to Australia. I was told by my constituents who did that work that it was good work, that it produced good extra wages, that they liked it and would like a lot more. But they did not get more. The shippers said they were disappointed with the facilities at Immingham and until there was more

modern equipment put in the ports there would be no more work of that type sent there.
I am pleading that something should be done to help our people in these two ports. As far as I can tell, the amount of money spent on these two ports since the war has been almost negligible. But look at what is being done for Hull on the other side of the river. The Lord Mayor of Hull, speaking in May this year, said that for the coming year alone they were going to spend the following sums in that port: a quarter of a million for developing the new quay at St. George's Dock, a million and three quarters for rebuilding the Riverside Quay, a million for the other Hull docks, and a substantial sum, not disclosed, for the equipment of the Humber Dock. The Humber Dock is older than the Grimsby Royal Dock.
Money is being found almost in bucketsful to bring Hull up to date, and we are getting nothing. We cannot get traffic in our two ports because we are told that the facilities are not good enough, and they are not good enough because money is not being spent on them. Whilst I agree that Hull took a heavy battering during the war, and it should therefore have priority for re-equipment, I think we ought to have some money spent on the other side. If we had had a quarter of the money spent on Immingham and on the Grimsby commercial docks that is being spent on Hull, our position would be very different.
The document issued by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, which the Minister may have seen, shows the amount of work for re-equipment and renovation up to 9th September this year. I shall pick out only two items as affecting the Immingham dock which is in my constituency. There is an item which shows that a new outer lock gate was authorised as long ago as January, 1950, and that it was to cost £60,000. The note at the side says "Tenders are still to be invited." The work was sanctioned nearly three years ago. This, I consider, is making haste slowly, if it is not going backwards. At the same time, on the northern side of the river they are spending three or four million a year. I want to know why it is that a renovation costing only £60,000 authorised nearly three years ago has not yet had tenders put out.
The second item that intrigued me was with regard to four new 10-ton Portal cranes for the mineral quay at Immingham. The expenditure there was authorised on 1st November, 1951, and the note at the side says that the tenders have been accepted. Can the Minister tell us when the work is to be started and when he thinks it will be finished? I went round these docks with some of my constituents and the cranes there are hydraulic. They complained that they are old and out of date, that they are dirty and wet to work under, and that this makes their work a great deal more disagreeable than it ought to be. I want to know if the Minister can tell us when some of that work is to be completed and when we shall see some results.
In order to leave time for the right hon. Member for Grimsby, I want to make concrete suggestions to the Minister. First of all we desire a good deal of money spent on the re-equipping of these two ports. Immingham, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the best deep sea port there is on the Eastern coast. Ships of a good size can get in there at any time, but there has been no real amount of money spent on that port since it was opened in 1912. The commercial docks in Grimsby are even worse, and unless some money is spent on them very soon they will be useless. What little work is still left there will be gone, and it will cause considerable unemployment amongst the men engaged in the ancillary trades round about the commercial docks.
These are the things we desire—which I think the Government can do for us and which they should do for us pretty quickly. I would ask them that all Government Departments should consider Grimsby and Immingham for the importation of their traffic. To a greater or lesser degree they control the importations and they decide where the cargoes should come in. We wish for our fair share. So far the two ports have been neglected, and we want something done fairly quickly.
Secondly, we wish to know if the Government can do anything to re-start those continental lines that we used to have before the war. Thirdly—and here I feel confident I can appeal to the right hon. Member for Grimsby, we desire the Admiralty to use these two ports as much in peace as they have used them in

war. They were very pleased with these ports in the critical days of war, and we do not wish them to neglect them now, because one day they may need them again. We say the Admiralty have not given us the fair share of the peacetime work. Fourthly, can the Government use their influence to get back the Australian Conference Line that would permit Grimsby to be classified as a terminal port?
My last point is that one day we all hope the iron curtain will cease to stop trade between the East and the West—and we all hope that it will happen soon. When it does, trade between Britain and the Baltic and the Eastern countries will have to come in mainly at some eastern ports. When that happy day comes, Immingham and Grimsby ports wish to handle their fair share of the trade. Unless some money is spent on re-equipment, they will not be in a position to do it. It seems the height of folly to be choking Hull with traffic it cannot adequately handle and to keep our two ports only moderately employed. I plead very hard with the Minister to do something for us. After all the promises made to us in the past four or five years, will he please see that something is done—and done soon?

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: I only wish to associate myself with the very strong plea made by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), because I wish to give time for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. I hope he will be able to give some reward to the very many people in Grimsby and Immingham who have shown great interest and activity in this matter over a fairly prolonged period—the civic authorities and the merchant interests, in conjunction with the hon. Member for Louth and myself.
The hon. Member has already mentioned the docks and city of Grimsby, and what he has said is perfectly true; but at the same time we pride ourselves, even in these days, that we are capable of giving a very quick turn-round to ships and of providing facilities, so that we feel we should be fully capable of plying more trade.
I do not want it to be thought that the Executive have proved unco-operative. It is true, however, that not much money


has been spent, and a little too often we have heard the argument, "Get the trade and we will then supply the facilities." It is, of course, equally true the other way round, that we will not get the trade until we have the facilities. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about this.

12.20 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): Hon. Members need not apologise for the lateness of the hour when making use of this valuable procedure of the Adjournment to raise constituency problems, particularly when one often has to wait so long to draw a successful place in the Ballot for the purpose.
We all know the interest which my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has shown in this subject over a period of years. Perhaps the best thing I can do in order to place the situation before the House is to compare the figures of pre-war and post-war inward and outward cargo, treating for this purpose the two ports of Grimsby and Immingham as a unit. The figures which I give are expressed in millions of tons. I am excluding fish for the purpose of this category, because, of course, Grimsby remains the premier fishing port of the country.
In 1938, the total cargoes handled in the two ports were 4.2 million tons, of which coal provided 2.9 and other cargo 1.3 million tons. Last year, the total was 3.7, of which coal provided 1.9 and other cargo 1.8. Both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) will see that fluctuations in activity have been almost entirely a reflection of coal movements. The trade other than coal has improved since the war and is, in fact, now actually above the pre-war level.
I am glad to inform the House that the figures for 1952 up to date are considerably more encouraging. In the first 36 weeks of this year, up to 7th September, cargo handled at the two ports was some 60 per cent. above the total for the corresponding period of 1951. This increase, in which both ports have shared, has come about mainly through increased shipments of coal, which have more than doubled, from 1,110,000 tons to 2,280,000 tons. Moreover, trade other than coal

has also improved, being 1,150,000 tons in the first 36 weeks of 1951 and 1,310,000 tons in the same period of this year, or an increase of 14 per cent.
I must, however, make this qualification, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Grimsby will be the first to be seized of it. While both Grimsby and Immingham shared in the coal increase, the increase in cargoes other than coal has been concentrated upon Immingham. Here I would quote the report of the Ports Efficiency Committee, which has just been published and which says:
In the last resort the amount of trade passing through a particular port is dictated neither by the port authority nor by the shipowner, both of whom are, in this respect, servants of the trading interest.
So far as Grimsby is concerned, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive have urged the National Coal Board to make use of this port as much as possible with vessels of up to 2,000 tons, which it can accommodate, and already more coal has been shipped in 1952, in the 36 weeks which I have quoted, than in the whole of 1951.
The British Transport Commission have reviewed on many occasions with the Associated Humber Lines the question of providing sailings from Grimsby to the Continent, to which my hon. Friend referred. Investigations have shown, however, that the volume of trade which importers and exporters would make available would be seriously insufficient to justify this venture.
On the other hand, as my hon. Friend and, doubtless, the right hon. Gentleman know, a deputation from Grimsby attended the Ministry of Food in July, and the Director of Transport in that Department visited the port in August. He is still investigating the possibility of greater use being made of Grimsby for the importation of foodstuffs, primarily from Denmark—for instance, eggs, butter and bacon.
The Australian Conference Lines, to which my hon. Friend also referred, use Hull and Middlesbrough on the northeast coast, and their experience shows that this caters for the regular traffic which offers. Grimsby could not, in any case, accommodate the large liners used in this trade. My hon. Friend will, however, be interested to learn that the Admiralty have suggested to Grimsby the possi-


bility of using certain wharves for the berthing of ships of the Reserve Fleet.
This is now under consideration locally. It would enable vessels of this type to lie alongside instead of out in the stream at various ports in different parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth referred to congestion at Hull, and asked if some of the cargoes could be brought to other ports. It is true that, during the summer, there has been some congestion at Hull, and it has reflected, in part, the difficulty of handling grain ships at a time when grain storage throughout the country was full. The Ports Efficiency Committee Report refers to this problem, and makes certain recommendations towards preventing its recurrence.
The Ministry of Food was, of course, aware of the Hull position, but, unfortunately, storage space at Immingham was also unable to accept full cargoes. Some of the grain ships had to be discharged into barges, and the grain in the barges was then landed at various ports including Immingham for bagging and storage inland.
I now turn to the situation at Immingham. The Australian Conference ships, to which I referred a moment ago, are at present making special calls at Immingham to load large consignments of prefabricated houses, and this is a new and welcome form of cargo for export. The dry dock is on land leased to a private firm of ship repairers, the Humber Dock and Engineering Company, Ltd., and discussions are now taking place between them and the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive on proposals for widening the dock.
An expenditure of £15,000 has recently been authorised for re-surfacing No. 1 Transit Shed and the adjoining quay, while the position at other berths is under review. The Docks Executive is in close touch with the National Coal Board regarding future exports through Immingham, and has under investigation schemes for providing additional appliances as the need arises, and for modernising present equipment.
The question of increasing the number of discharging berths, the increase of

suitable grab facilities, the improving of wheat discharging facilities, and the renewal of cranes, are inter-related subjects. The Transport Commission considers that the first step is not to provide new berths so much as to improve facilities already existing.
As my hon. Friend is aware, and as he reminded us, it was decided some time ago to order four 10-ton electric portable cranes fitted for grab working at a cost of about £135,000. I am glad to be able to tell him that delivery of the first of these is expected next month, while the fourth and last should arrive in May, 1953, unless unforeseen circumstances arise. Further stages of re-craning will be considered.
I would emphasise that the Docks Executive is doing its best to stress to liner companies the facilities available at Immingham and they are being improved as rapidly as possible—witness the arrival of the new cranes, the improvement of quay surfaces, and the prospective modernisation of coal-loading equipment.
I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. Member for raising this important question and I hope he will feel able to report to his constituents that since November, 1951, considerable progress has been made in re-equipping the ports. He has certainly played a leading part in keeping the problem before Her Majesty's Government and its predecessors.

Mr. Osborne: The £135,000 at Immingham and Grimsby compares with £4 million which is to be spent this year at Hull. Why cannot we have a comparable amount spent on the south side of the river?

Mr. Braithwaite: There are the cranes and my hon. Friend should be grateful for that, apart from the other things. The reason so much more is being spent at Hull is that it was badly blitzed.

Mr. Osborne: But that has been repaired.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.